Hon’ble P.K.S. Baghel, J.—By way of this writ petition the petitioner who was appointed as Assistant Teacher has challenged the order passed by the Joint Director dated 3.11.2012 whereby petitioner’s representation for payment of post-retiral benefit has been rejected on the ground that petitioner was not a permanent teacher.

2. Foundational facts in brief are that Karma Kshettra Inter College, Etawah is a recognized institution, wherein education is imparted upto the level of Intermediate. It receives aid out of State Fund. The provisions of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, the Regulations framed thereunder, the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education (Services Selection Board) Act, 1982 (U.P. Act No. 5 of 1982) and the U.P. High Schools and Intermediate College (Payment of Salaries to Teachers and other Employees) Act, 1971 are applicable to the institution. The institution is administered by the respondent No. 6, the Committee of Management.

3. It is averred by the petitioner that a regular/permanent Assistant Teacher namely Gyan Shanker Verma was promoted on the post of Lecturer causing a short term vacancy. The petitioner was appointed against the said vacancy as ad hoc Assistant Teacher in L.T. Grade after following the procedure prescribed under the law. After the appointment, the management sent the papers to the office of District Inspector of the Education for his approval.

4. The District Inspector of School having satisfied, accorded his approval, vide order dated 1.2.1995. The Copy of the said order is brought on the record as Annexure-1 to the writ petition. The petitioner joined his duties on the same day. He continuously worked in the Institution and drew his salary from the Salary Payment Account of the state. The Secondary Education Services Selection Board, for the some reasons, could not make selection against the post; therefore, he continued uninterruptedly. The petitioner reached his age of superannuation on 30.6.2012. He completed his 17 years 2 month service in the same status, i.e., on ad hoc basis. After his retirement the petitioner made a representation for his post retrial benefits including the pension. His repeated representation did not find favour from the authority concerned.

5. Petitioner in his evening of life, having lost all the hope, preferred a writ petition No. 41841 of 2012 (Prem Singh Verma v. State of U.P. and others) before this Court for direction upon the respondents to consider his cause, which was disposed of on 24.8.2012 with a direction upon the competent authority to consider the grievance of the petitioner. A copy of the said order has been brought on record as Annexure-3 to the writ petition.

6. Pursuant thereto, the Joint Director of Education has passed the impugned order on 3.11.2012 whereby Petitioner’s representation had been rejected primarily on the ground that petitioner was a ad hoc/temporary employee and the pension is admissible only to the regular/permanent teacher.

7. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf the Sate functionaries. Their stand in the counter-affidavit is that the petitioner was admittedly ad hoc teacher and only a permanent teacher is entitled for the pension, therefore, the ground mentioned in the impugned order are justifiable and no interference is called for under the writ jurisdiction.

8. I have heard Sri Siddarth Khare, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri A. K. Yadav, learned Standing Counsel.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Siddarth Khare submits that the Petitioner has completed more than 17 years of continuous service, therefore, he is entitled for all the benefits which is admissible to a regular teacher. He has drawn the attention of the Court to Government order dated 1.7.1989, wherein it is provided that after ten years regular service if an employee reaches his age of superannuation is entitled for pension. He further submits that the said Government Order was filed before Joint Director alongwith