Hon’ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi, J.—Heard Shri Amit Saxena, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Prashant Rai, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents.

2. By means of present writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for quashing the impugned order dated 25.11.1990 (Annexure 4 to the writ petition) passed by the respondent No. 3. By the amendment application allowed on 29.7.2013, they have further prayed for direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to promote them on the post of Assistant Development Officer (Co-operative) on regular basis w.e.f. 20.12.2001 and to grant all consequential benefits to them, which will flow from the aforesaid regular promotion.

3. Shri Amit Saxena, learned counsel for the petitioners states that Shri Hariom Srivastava-petitioner No. 6 filed an appeal, which was allowed and his services had been regularized. The petitioner No. 6 is also receiving the pension and as such, he does not have any grievance. Shri Amit Saxena states that at present, he has instructions only with regard to petitioner Nos. 1, 2 and 4. He does not have any instructions with regard to petitioner Nos. 3 and 5.

4. Brief facts giving rise to the present case are that the petitioner Nos. 1 to 4 were appointed as Cooperative Supervisors on 22.7.1978, 18.7.1978, 3.3.1960 and 3.17.1978 respectively and the petitioner No. 5 was appointed as Gram Vikas Adhikari on 29.11.1956. The petitioner Nos. 1 to 5 were eventually promoted as Assistant Development Officer (Cooperative) for 90 days vide an order dated 2.12.1988 (Annexure 1 to the writ petition). Thereafter, they were given extension from time to time and as such the petitioners are working as Assistant Development Officer (Cooperative) since December, 1988.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the post of Assistant Development Officer (Cooperative) falls under the State Government and they have been paid salary from the State exchequer. The petitioners are continuously discharging their duties with utmost satisfaction to their superior officers since the year 1988. Finally the petitioner No. 1 retired on 31.7.2013; petitioner No. 2 retired on 31.1.2015 and petitioner No. 4 superannuated on 31.10.2012. By the order dated 16.11.2012 the respondents promoted the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 on regular basis from the date of their taking over charge.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners were discharging their duties as Assistant Development Officer (Panchayat) since the year 1988, and they have already completed the minimum required period for pension. Under U.P. Regularization of Ad-hoc Promotion (On Post Outside the Purview of Public Service Commission) Rules, 1988, as amended on 20.12.2011, the petitioners became entitled for regular promotion by virtue of the fact that they were fully qualified for promotional post of Assistant Development Officer (Panchayat) and had already completed more than three years of service on the said post, and regular vacancies were in existence. Rule 4 of the Regularization Rules of 1988 provides that such ad-hoc appointees shall be promoted before any regular appointment is made against such vacancy under the Rules and therefore, the petitioners were entitled for regular promotion since 20.12.2001 itself. He further submits that once the petitioners had been promoted on ad-hoc basis and no person had joined on such posts and the petitioners could not have been reverted back, they became entitled for regular promotion on the basis of Regularization Rules, 1988. The petitioners were promoted on ad-hoc basis and were in fact treated to be regular promotee throughout for the period of 25 years by deducting the GPF and granting them all service benefits including pay-scales and increments of regular Assistant Development Officers.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed his reliance on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Amrendra Narain Srivastava v. State