JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners Sri Vivek Sirswal, Sri Rakesh Kumar Singh, Sri Angrej Nath Shukla, Km. Pratima Devi, Sri Vivek Kumar Rai, Sri Jitendra Kumar Pandey, Sri Lalji Yadav, Sri Manendra Nath Rai, Sri Fahmid Ahmad, Sri Mohd. Ateeq Khan, Sri Suneel Kumar Singh Kalhans, Sri Shobh Nath Pandey, Sri Sudeep Kumar, Sri Ramesh Kumar Srivastava, Sri Mohd. Tauseef Siddiqui, Sri Pradeep Kumar Shukla, Sri Yogesh Chandra Srivastava, Sri Jai Bahadur Singh, Sri Mrinal Tripathi, Sri Nirankar Singh, Sri Ashok Kumar Mishra, Sri Vimal Kumar, Km. Vishwa Mohini, Sri Ashwani Kumar, Sri Arvind Pratap Singh, Sri V.K. Shukla, Sri Aditya Vikram Shahi, Sri Vinod Kumar Singh, Sri Mukesh Kumar, Sri Digvijay Singh Yadav, Sri Pradip Kumar Srivastava, Sri Lalendra Pratap Singh, Sri. A.P. Singh, Sri Satish Kumar Sharma and Sri Praful Yadav, learned Standing Counsel for the State.

2. This Bunch of writ petitions relates to interpretation and application of Section 2 of the Act of 2021 for counting qualifying service for the purpose of pension with regard to work charge employees, daily wager employees, adhoc appointees against the post as well as Seasonal Collection Amin. Since common issue is involved in all the writ petitions with regard to interpretation of Section 2 of Section 2021, therefore, the same are being decided by this common judgment.

Work-Charge Employees:

3. The petitioners are work charge employees appointed between 1979 to 1988 and regularized in different departments between 1994 to 2013. All the petitioners are now retired. They claim entitlement of pension after taking into account the services rendered by them as work charge employee.

In Writ-A No.6343 of 2020, claim of the petitioner was rejected by impugned order dated 28.1.2020 on the ground that judgment in case of Prem Singh vs. State of U.P. and others, (2019) 10 SCC 516 has not attained finality;

In Writ-A No.7877 of 2022, the petitioner has challenged the order passed in the year 2022 without any specific date, rejecting his claim on the ground that as per the Ordinance issued on 5.3.2021, case of the petitioner is not covered;

In Writ-A No.9 of 2023, under challenge is the impugned order dated 11.11.2022 whereby claim of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that his initial appointment was on work charge post;

In Writ-A No.18054 of 2021, challenge is made to the impugned order dated 29.12.2020 by means of which claim of the petitioners was rejected on the ground that they are not a party to the case of Prem Singh (supra); and

In Writ-A No.3662 of 2019, petitioners have challenged the order dated 10.7.2018 whereby claim of the petitioners was rejected on the ground that their services were regularized on 21.1.2013 i.e. after old pension scheme was abolished.

4. Learned counsels for the petitioners have relied upon the case of Prem Singh (supra) as well as judgment of this Court in the cases of State of U.P. and others vs. Mahendra Singh (Special Appeal Defective No.1003 of 2020), decided on 4.2.2021; State of U.P. and others vs. Bhanu Pratap Sharma (Special Appeal No.97 of 2021) decided on 9.6.2021; State of U.P. and others vs. Bhanu Pratap (Special Appeal No.152 of 2021) decided on 14.7.2021 and the order dated 11.7.2022 passed in the case of State of U.P. and others vs. Bhanu Pratap (Special Leave to Appeal (c) No.10381 of 2022, which is rejected by the Supreme Court.

5. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel opposing the same, submits that the judgment in case of Prem Singh (supra) is passed on the basis of Civil Services Regulations (CSR Regulations) as existed at that time. The same stand superseded by the U.P. Ordinance No.19 of 2020 (The U.P. Qualifying Services for Pension and Validation Ordinance, 2020) published in extraordinary gazette of Government of U.P. on 21.10.2020 followed by the U.P. Qualifying Service for Pension and Validation Act, 2021 (for short 'the Act of 2021'). As per Section 2 of the Act of 2021, the term 'qualifying servi