JUDGMENT :

[J.J. Munir, J.]

1. This petition is directed against an order passed by the Additional/Joint Director, Treasury and Pension, Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh dated 24.9.2017, requiring the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Raja Talab, Varanasi to submit a revised proposal for consideration of the petitioner's case for the grant of pension and other post-retiral benefits, after excluding the period of service rendered by him, prior to his regularisation, as a Lekhpal.

2. A counter-affidavit on behalf of respondent Nos. 3 and 5 jointly, and a separate counter-affidavit on behalf of respondent No. 4 have been filed. In reply to both these counter-affidavits, the petitioner has filed two separate rejoinders.

3. This petition was admitted on 8.12.2020, and the hearing had proceeded on that date. Later on, it was brought to the Court's notice that the rights of the petitioner to pension, reckoning the period of his continuous service rendered as a Lekhpal prior to regularisation, would now be governed by the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Qualifying Service of Pension and Validation Ordinance, 2020 (U.P. Ordinance 19 of 2020). The service book of the petitioner was summoned and retained on record.

4. Heard Mr. Daya Shanker Yadav, Advocate, alongwith Mr. Mahendra Kumar, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. L.K. Tiwari, the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel alongwith Mr. Sharad Chand Upadhyaya, the learned State Law Officer on behalf of the State-respondents.

5. The moot question involved in this petition is :

Whether the petitioner, a retired Lekhpal, has put in qualifying service, entitling him to receipt of pension, gratuity and other post-retiral benefits?

6. The Additional/Joint Director, Treasury and Pension, Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh, by his order impugned dated 24.9.2017, has opined that the petitioner's service, prior to his regularisation as a Lekhpal w.e.f. 13.9.2006, cannot be counted towards his qualifying service for the purpose of pension etc. The Additional/Joint Director, Treasury and Pension, has relied on an order of the Board of Revenue dated 17.10.2016 to discount the services of the petitioner rendered as an untrained Lekhpal prior to his regularisation. If that Board order alone were to be the law governing the right of the petitioner to receive his retirement pension and other post-retiral benefits, the matter would have to be considered from a different perspective altogether, and, may be, to reach a very different conclusion. The rights of parties, however, have suffered a change, in view of the Uttar Pradesh Qualifying Service of Pension and Validation Act, 2021 (U.P. Act No. 1 of 2021). The aforesaid Act shall hereinafter be referred to as ''the Act''.

7. The brief facts of the petitioner's case are that he was appointed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Tehsil Raja Talab, District - Varanasi on the post of a temporary Lekhpal vide order dated 30.3.1987. It is the petitioner's case that he continuously worked on the post of Lekhpal in several Tehsil of the Varanasi district, and did so always to the satisfaction of his superiors. He was sent for training from 1.5.2006 to 31.7.2006. His services were regularised w.e.f. 13.9.2006. He retired from service on 31.3.2016, upon attaining the age of superannuation. Post retirement, the petitioner submitted his documents before the respondents for sanction and disbursement of his pension and other post-retiral benefits. It is at this stage that the Additional/Joint Director, Treasury and Pension, Varanasi, passed the order impugned dated 24.9.2017, addressed to the Sub-Divisional Officer, Raja Talab, Varanasi, requiring him to revise the proposal for sanction of the petitioner's retirement pension, after excluding from qualifying service the period prior to 13.9.2006, that is to say, the period of service rendered by the petitioner prior to regularisation.

8. It is the petitioner's case, relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in Habib Khan v. State of Uttara