JUDGMENT :

1. The conundrum relating to the reckoning of dates for the purpose of computation of “qualifying service’ for grant of pensionary benefits to an employee having being regularized to a post has been a subject matter of adjudication in several judgments in the past and although this court has in several precedents has carved a niche leading to the development of service jurisprudence on the said issue, but unfortunately the controversy has refused to die down and yet, the present bunch of matters have come for consideration before this court.

2. Since, common issue is raised in all these writ petitions, the bunch is being taken for final disposal together.

3. Apparently, there are two class of petitioners in these bunch of petitions, the first being those petitioners who had as per the direction of this court given a detailed representation to the authority and their representation having been decided unfavourably against them vide various orders including order dated 05.11.2020, 10.07.2018 etc., have again approached this court challenging the said impugned orders and the second class of petitioner belonging to those category, who have approached this court for the first time highlighting the self-same issue, which had been raised by the first set of petitioners in the earlier round of litigation. The similarity, however, lies in the entry in service, therefore, the above classification in the pursuit of an identical right is immaterial. Suffice it to say that entry in service at par with a member of service is either by regular appointment according to service rules or by regularization according to regularization rules.

4. Heard Shri Sudeep Seth, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Kunj Bihari Pandey, Advocate for the petitioner and Additional Advocate General Shri Ramesh Kumar Singh, Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Sanjay Sarin, Shri Pratyush Tripathi, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel’s for the State and Shri Tushar Verma, learned Special Counsel for the opposite parties.

5. It is the common case of the petitioners that, they had been appointed as “Part time Tube well operators” during the year 1987 to 1994 and their services were regularized during the year 2008 to 2009. It is their case that although they had been regularized in the year 2008-2009, however in view of the judgment of this court passed in writ petition No. 3558 of 1992 (Suresh Chandra Tiwari and others Vs. State of U.P. and others) by a Single Bench on 18.05.1994, which was subsequently upheld by the Hon’ble Apex Court vide order dated 22.03.1995, wherein these “Part time tube well operators” have been granted the same emoluments i.e. in the same scale of pay which were given to the regular Tube well operators, they have now claimed pensionary benefits etc. by including past services from initial engagement for the purpose.

6. Rule of law is the hall mark of a democractic society. In the pursuit of this object public services play a vital role. The appointment of personnel to public services play a vital role. The appointment of personnel to public services at the grassroot level has throughout posed vexatious problems in the matter of appointment and regulation of service condition. Article 14 of the Constitution of India has withstood the temperts of classification and discrimination but the emerging disparity to regulate the condition of pension as an end result of service ought not to obliterate the object of equality in a level playing field. In other words, the application of pension rules knows of no exception or discrimination once it is a firmly provided that the marriage of resentment with the post (temporary or permanent) ought to be qualified with the appointment of personnel by strict application of service rules for recognising a person to be a member of service. It is for this reason that a backdoor entry in service does not confer membership in service till an incumbent is duly regularised and the date of regularization i