Hon’ble Attau Rahman Masoodi, J.—Supplementary counter-affidavit filed by learned Standing Counsel is taken on record.

2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner does not wish to file any rejoinder-affidavit to the supplementary counter-affidavit.

3. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel who has accepted notice on behalf of respondents.

Factual Background

4. The petitioner was initially appointed as junior clerk on ad hoc basis by order dated 22.4.1989 against a regular post and she was regularized in service on the post of junior clerk under the Uttar Pradesh Regularisation of Ad hoc Appointments (On Posts Outside the Purview of the Public Service Commission) Rules, 1979 as amended in the year 2001 by order dated 30.6.2008.

5. Petitioner has also retired from service in the year 2014 whereafter papers for grant of pension were forwarded to the Treasury for necessary sanction which on being processed have been found to be defective and accordingly her claim for pensionary benefits was returned to the department for rectification of the defects vide letter dated 30.4.2013. The in-action on the part of the State authorities to rectify the defects in terms of the aforesaid letter has given rise to the present writ petition wherein the relief prayed for is reproduced below :

“(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to provide the pensionary benefits to the petitioner being a regular employee.

(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to consider the service period rendered by the petitioner as ad hoc employee for commutation of pension.”

6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was appointed as ad hoc employee in the year 1989 after following due process of selection who has worked against a regular post and was granted all the benefits of service including selection grade and promotional scale on the completion of requisite length of service from the initial date of appointment. It is further submitted that the case of the petitioner to be considered for regularisation fell due as per the amendment made in the aforesaid rules w.e.f. 20.12.2001 but non-consideration of the petitioner’s claim timely has resulted into an injury which deserves to be considered on the strength of an uninterrupted satisfactory service rendered by her ever since her initial appointment or at least by computing her unblemished service against a regular vacancy after the enforcement of amendment in the regularisation rules w.e.f. 20.12.2001.

7. The continuity of the petitioner as ad hoc employee is not in dispute and availability of regular post is also not disputed by the learned Standing Counsel in the counter-affidavit filed on 12.8.2015. Moreover, the recommendation made vide letter dated 13.1.2016 for grant of post retiral dues also makes a mention of the existence of post against which the petitioner was appointed from the initial stage and the entire services rendered by the petitioner are in a permanent establishment is also not in dispute.

8. The fact remains that the petitioner after being regularised in service by order dated 30.6.2008 has thereafter not raised any grievance against her regularisation for being related back to the due date and a specific grievance as regards the consequence of regularisation being effective from the date of order, on her post retiral benefits, was also not conceived and agitated by her while in service and the issue of confirmation never surfaced before the petitioner till she attained the age of superannuation. It is in this background that the State Government in its stand taken in the counter-affidavit has denied the benefit of pension disallowing her ad hoc service to be treated as computable for the purpose of fulfilling the requisite pe