JUDGMENT :

[Saral Srivastava, J.]

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No. 1 and Sri Arun Kumar, learned counsel for respondent No. 2.

2. The petitioner by means of the present writ petition has assailed the order dated 22.2.2021 by which claim of petitioner for grant of pensionary benefits and other retiral dues has been rejected.

3. The case of the petitioner is that he has been appointed as daily wager Clerk by Deputy Administrator by order dated 14.6.1989. As the petitioner had been in service since before 11.10.1989, therefore, his services has been regularised by order dated 22.9.2008. The petitioner has retired on 31.8.2018.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has continued in service since 1989, therefore, his services rendered as daily wager from 14.6.1989 till the date of regularisation is liable to be counted with regular service for the purpose of grant of retiral dues. The aforesaid contention has been advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the basis of judgement of Apex Court in the case of Prem Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, 2019 (10) SCC 516 and judgement of this Court in the case of Kaushal Kishore Chaubey and others v. State of U.P. and others in Writ-A No. 5817 of 2020. Accordingly, it is submitted that impugned order is not sustainable in law.

5. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that petitioner has worked as daily wager and his services has been regularised w.e.f. 22.9.2008, and therefore, he shall be governed under the New Pension Scheme, which has been made applicable to all State Government employees w.e.f. 1.4.2005. Accordingly, it is contended that there is no illegality in the impugned order, and no case for interference by this Court is made out under Article 226 of Constitution of India.

6. I have considered the rival submissions of the parties and perused the record.

7. The record reflects that petitioner has been engaged as daily wager Clerk on 14.6.1989. It also transpires from the record that since the date of engagement of petitioner as daily wager, he was continuously working till his services was regularised by order dated 22.9.2008, therefore, in view of the judgement of Apex Court in the case of Prem Singh (supra) as well as judgement of this Court in the case of Kaushal Kishore Chaubey (supra), the services rendered as daily wager is liable to be counted for the purpose of grant of pensionary benefit after retirement, and if that be so, obviously the date of appointment of petitioner would be treated to be 14.6.1989. Hence, the services of the petitioner will be governed under the Old Pension Scheme as has been held by this Court in Writ-A No. 55607 of 2008 which has been upheld by this Court in Special Appeal Defective No. 116 of 2021.

8. This Court in Special Appeal Defective No. 116 of 2016 has held that date of appointment is relevant for determining applicability of Old or New Pension Scheme as the date of appointment of petitioner is 14.6.1989 which is prior to 1.4.2005, therefore, case of the petitioner is covered under Old Pension Scheme. Paragraph 8 of the said judgement is extracted herein below :

''8.The issue aforesaid has been factually discussed by the learned Single Judge by referring to the judgment of this Court in the case of Satyesh Kumar Mishra and others v. State of U.P. and others, 2016(6) ADJ 808 (LB) and so as the judgment of Delhi High Court in the case of Inspector Rejendra Singh v. Union of India, 2017 SCC Online Del. 7879. We do not find any error in the judgment. It is not only the date of appointment is relevant but candidate lower in merit out of same selection are governed by the old pension scheme because appointments and joining were given from time to time before even 1.4.2005 thus appellant cannot be deprived from the same benefits. The judgments on the issue has been discussed by the learned Single Judge.''

9. In view of the aforesaid fact, t