Point of Law
If service rendered in a non-pensionable establishment, work-charged establishment or in post paid form contingencies falls between two periods of temporary service in a pensionable establishment or between a period of temporary service and permanent service in a pensionable establishment, it will not constitute an interruption of service.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Ashok Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ran Vijay Singh, learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

2. By means of this petition, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 1.8.2016 passed by the Principal Secretary, Public Works Department rejecting the claim of the petitioner whereby he has prayed that his services rendered as an ad hoc employee w.e.f. 6.11.1973 to 31.12.2005 be counted in his total length of service for providing him all post retiral benefits.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner had requested that he may be given the benefit of judgment and order dated 1.3.2012 passed in passed in Dr. Amrendra Narain Srivastava Vs. State of U.P. and others, in Writ Petition No.61974 of 2011, whereby this Court has directed that ad hoc services so rendered by the employee shall be counted in the total length of service and such employee shall be given the retiral benefits counting said ad hoc services. The competent authority in the impugned order dated 1.8.2016 has categorically indicated that the present petitioner may not get the benefit of the order dated 1.3.2012 in re; Dr. Amrendra Narain Srivastava (supra) for the reason that the issue of the petitioner is different from the matter of Dr. Amrendra Narain Srivastava (supra). It has further been indicated in the impugned order that for providing such benefit, the provision of Regulation 361 of the Civil Service Regulations shall be abide by and since such provisions are not being abide by in the case of the petitioner, therefore, his services rendered on ad hoc basis shall not be counted.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of this Court towards the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in re; Shashi Srivastava Vs. State of U.P. and Another, reported in [(2019) 2 UPLBEC 1326], wherein the identical controversy has been decided. For the brevity, the judgment and order dated 20.5.2019 in re; Shashi Srivastava (supra) is being reproduced herein below:-

"1. Order dated 01.05.2018 having been recalled vide order of date passed on Recall Application, writ petition is restored to its original number. As requested and agreed by learned counsel for parties, We proceed to hear and decide this case finally at this stage.

2. Heard Sri Pradeep Verma, learned counsel for petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for State of U.P. And perused the material available on record.

3. This writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India has been filed against order dated 21.05.2014, whereby service rendered by petitioner on adhoc basis before regularization from the years 1975 to 1992 has not been treated 'qualifying service' for the purpose of retiral benefits by referring to Article 361 of Civil Service Regulations (hereinafter referred to as "C.S.R.").

4. In the impugned order dated 21.05.2014, Director, Bal Vikas Avam Pushtahar has said that under Article 361, adhoc service does not qualify for pension.

5. It is not disputed that retirement of petitioner is governed by fundamental Rule 56 read with relevant provisions of C.S.R. Every employee, whether permanent or temporary or ad-hoc is liable to retire on attaining age of superannuation as provided under fundamental Rule 56.

6. Under U.P. Retirement Benefit Rules, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "Rules, 1961") "qualifying service" is defined in Rule 3(8). It means 'service' which qualifies for pension in accordance with provisions of Article 368 of C.S.R. Rule 3(8) is quoted as below:-

"Rule 3(8)-" Qualifying service" means service which qualifies for pension in accordance with the provisions of Article 368 of the Civil Services Regulations:

Provided that continuous temporary or officiating service under the Government of Uttar Pradesh followed without interruption by confirmation in the same or any other post except-

(i) periods of temporary or officiating service in a non-pensionable establishment.

(ii) peri