JUDGMENT :

J.J. MUNIR, J.

1. This writ petition has been instituted, praying that a mandamus be issued to the respondents to grant post retiral benefits to the petitioner, a Pump Attendant in the Water Supply Division of the Nagar Palika Parishad, District Etawah, after taking into consideration his ad hoc services.

2. According to the petitioner’s case, he was ‘appointed’ as a Pump Attendant in the Water Supply Division of the Nagar Palika Parishad, Etawah on ad hoc basis w.e.f. 02.09.1988. His services were regularized on 26.03.2006. He retired from service on 31.07.2022, upon attaining the age of superannuation. It is the petitioner’s case that upon retirement, he claimed his post retiral dues, which were verified by the Deputy Director, Local Fund Audit Department, U.P. Kanpur on 13.02.2023.

3. The grievance of the petitioner is that despite the said verification and his entitlement, he has not been paid his post retiral benefits. It is averred in Paragraph No. 7 of the writ petition that the respondents have reckoned the petitioner’s entitlement to post retiral benefits from the date of his regularization and not the date of his appointment. It is the petitioner’s case that though he is entitled to receive pension and other retiral benefits, reckoning his entire length of service from the date of his initial appointment, the respondents have declined to grant him pension and other commensurate benefits, taking into consideration the entire length of his service; not just the period of service post regularization.

4. Respondent No. 4, that is to say, the Executive Officer, Nagar Palika Parishad, Etawah has filed a counter affidavit and the stand taken is that the petitioner’s right to receive pension would be governed by the Uttar Pradesh Nagar Palika Non Centralized Services Retirement Benefits Regulations, 1984 (for short ‘the Regulations of 1984’). It is averred that the petitioner was initially engaged as a daily-wager on 02.09.1988, which was not a pensionable post. His services were regularized on 26.03.2006 i.e. after 1st April, 2005. As such, the petitioner is not entitled to receive any retirement pension in accordance with Regulations 3 and 4 of the Regulations of 1984. It is also urged that the petitioner did not hold a ‘pensionable post’ as defined in Regulation 2(k) of the Regulations of 1984 nor has he rendered ‘qualifying service’ under Regulation 2(m) of the Regulations last mentioned.

5. The thrust of the fourth respondent’s case, set up in the counter affidavit, is that the petitioner did not hold any substantive or pensionable post prior to 26.03.2006, when his services were regularized. His services rendered earlier were ad hoc in nature and not services rendered against any pensionable post. The petitioner’s appointment to a post came after 01.04.2005, and, therefore, under Regulation 3(4) of the Regulations of 1984, the petitioner is not entitled to pension and gratuity by virtue of Regulation 13(2). It is also pleaded that by an order dated 13.02.2023 passed by the Deputy Director, Local Fund Audit Department, U.P., Kanpur, the petitioner has been rightly denied sanction of pension and gratuity in accordance with the provisions of Regulation 13(2) of the Regulations of 1984, an order that the petitioner has not challenged. The said order has become final and in the absence of a challenge to the said order, no mandamus can be issued to pay the petitioner his pension and gratuity.

6. Heard Mr. Puneet Bhadauria, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Saurabh Tiwari, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Nagar Palika Parishad, respondent Nos.3 and 4.

7. The relief in this writ petition, though rather vaguely worded as one seeking grant of post retiral benefits, after computing ad hoc services rendered by the petitioner, is one that seeks the grant of pension and gratuity upon reckoning the petitioner’s period of engagement as an ad hoc employee together with the period of service post regularization. It