Point of Law: Once it is settled that the ad hoc service, which has been made basis of regularization, has been considered in catena of judgments and it has been held that the same is countable for reckoning the qualifying service for the payment of pension

JUDGMENT :

IRSHAD ALI, J.

1. Heard Sri. Pradip Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri. Shatrughan Chaudhary, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for State-respondent.

2. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for issuance of writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to count the ad hoc service rendered by the petitioners prior to their regularization towards qualifying service for the grant of pension, gratuity and other retiral benefits and to grant third time pay scale on completion of 26 years of service taking into consideration the ad hoc service, which was made basis of grant of regularization to the petitioners.

3. Facts in brief are that the petitioners were granted appointment following the procedure of selection on the post of Vice Principal, I.T.I. vide order dated 5.10.1988 (petitioner Nos. 1 and 2) and 17.12.1988 (petitioner No. 3) and on completion of satisfactory service, pay scales were provided to them and ultimately, petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 were regularized vide order dated 20.12.2013 and petitioner No. 3 was regularized vide order dated 30.12.2014 w.e.f. 14.2.2010. On completion of satisfactory service, benefits of second time bound pay scale was granted to the petitioners w.e.f. 14.10.2010 and thereafter, on attaining the age of superannuation, the petitioners retired from service on 31.12.2019, 30.9.2019 and 30.6.2019 respectively. After retirement of the petitioners, they were not paid the retiral dues and pension, on the ground that they have not completed ten years of service to their credit for consideration of claim for the payment of retiral dues as well as pension. It has also been the ground for non payment of third A.C.P. that the petitioners have not completed regular 26 years of service, thus, they are not entitled for the grant of third A.C.P.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the law in this regard is settled by this Court as well as by the Hon'ble Apex Court that while calculating the qualifying service, ad hoc service rendered shall be taken into consideration in grant of pension and other retiral dues.

5. In support of his submission, he placed reliance upon the following judgments:-

(i) Hari Shankar Asopa vs. State of U.P. and Another, 1990 Lab I.C. 292

(ii) Yashwant Hari Katakkar vs. Union of India and Others, 1995 Lab I.C. 718

(iii) State of U.P. vs. Sri. Kant Chaturvedi and Others, Service Bench No. 1896 of 2015

(iv) State of U.P. vs. Vimal Kumar Shukla, Special Appeal Defective No. 1084 of 2020

(v) Bhanu Pratap Singh vs. State of U.P. and Others, Writ Petition No. 6518 (S/S) of 2012

6. On the basis of the aforesaid, his submission is that the petitioners are entitled for calculation of their service rendered on ad hoc basis for reckoning the qualifying service for the grant of pension and other benefits. Next submission is that the respondents are acting arbitrarily and for no valid justification, they have ignored the ad hoc service of the petitioners and have not released the post retiral dues and pension in favour of the petitioners. Last submission is that the claim setup by the petitioners is fully covered by the judgment relied upon, which are part of the writ petition as Annexure-7 to the writ petition.

7. On the other hand, Sri. Chaudhary, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel submits that for the payment of pension and other retiral dues, service rendered on ad hoc basis cannot be made a ground for reckoning as a qualifying service. The petitioners have not completed ten years of service, therefore, they are not entitled for pension and other benefits admissible to the post. He next submits that the present petition was filed prior to retirement from the post, therefore, there may not be a prayer to release the post retiral dues and pension in favour of the petitioners. Last submission is that there is no illegality on the part of the respondents in not releasing the said benefit.

Submission advanced by learned