JUDGMENT :

RAJIV JOSHI, J.

1. Heard Sri Dharmendra Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Govind Narain Srivastava, learned Standing counsel for the State respondent nos. 1 to 3.

2. The present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been filed for quashing the impugned order dated 23.01.2014 passed by the respondent no. 3, District Inspector of Schools, District-Firozabad whereby the period of ad hoc service rendered by the petitioner has not been taken into account for the purpose of pension.

3. The petitioner retired on 30.6.2013 after completing more than 17 years of regular service on the post of Assistant Teacher (L.T. Grade). His services were regularized in the year 2016, grievance of the petitioner is that the ad hoc services rendered by him has not been counted in fixation of his pension.

4. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the controversy involved in the present case has already been decided in Writ Appeal No. 25431 of 2018, Sunita Sharma vs. State of U.P. and Others decided on 20.12.2018.

5. The aforesaid order dated 20.12.2018 passed in Writ Appeal No. 25431 of 2018 reads as under:

“Petitioner was appointed as As