IMPORTANT POINT
Ad-hoc services followed by regularization are considered qualifying service for pension under the U.P. State Aided Educational Institution Employees Contributory Provident Fund, Insurance Pension Rules' 1964.

JUDGMENT :

1. The issue for consideration in these three connected appeals is one and the same. They have been heard together and are being decided by this common judgment.

2. This intra-Court appeal filed by the State and the Department of Education is directed against the orders of the learned Single Judge wherein the claim of the writ petitioners for including the ad-hoc services rendered by them, before regularization of their service, in the qualifying service, as per the U.P. State Aided Educational Institution Employees Contributory Provident Fund, Insurance Pension Rules' 1964, found favorable consideration. Direction was issued by the learned Single Judge in the judgment impugned to compute pension together with its dues within a time bound period and make payment. In one of the connected matters, the petitioners have been held to be entitled to interest at the rate of 8% from the date of the order till the date of actual payment, in case of failure, to make payment within the time provided therein.

3. The undisputed relevant facts of the matter are that all the writ petitioners herein had been appointed as Assistant Teachers on ad-hoc basis against the substantive vacancies in the institution in question, in accordance with the U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission (Removal of Difficulties) (Second) Order, 1981.

4. With the enforcement of Amendment Act No. 7/2016 wef 22.3.2016 in the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act' 1982 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the services of the writ petitioners stood regularized w.e.f. 22.3.2016. It is also not in dispute that all the writ petitioners/respondents herein continued to work in permanent capacity against substantive vacancies till the date of their retirement on attaining the age of superannuation. The salary allowances and other dues have been paid to the writ petitioners/respondents herein. The dispute, however, pertains to the claim of reitral dues including pension. The appellants had rejected the claim of the writ petitioners for payment of pension and hence they approached the writ Court.

5. Taking note of the stand of the writ petitioners and the decisions of this Court in Sunita Sharma v. State of U.P. and others, Writ-A No. 25431 of 2018 decided on 20.12.2018 affirmed by the Special Appellate Court in Special Appeal (D) No. 181 of 2020 (State of U.P. v. Sunita Sharma) vide judgment and order dated 11.6.2020 as also the relevant statutory provisions, it was held by the learned Single Judge in the judgment and order dated 30.9.2022 in the case of Nand Lal v. State of U.P. and others, 2022 (11) ADJ 177 connected with other writ petitions that the denial of the claim made by the writ petitioners was contrary to law.

6. It was held that the Rules' 1964 are specific rules applicable to permanent employees serving in the State aided education institutions of specified category. Rule 3 and 4 provides the category of the institution and the employees of the State Aided Education Institutions to whom benefits under the 1964 Rules would be applicable. It was held that there being no dispute that the writ petitioners were permanent employees on the date of retirement upon regularization granted under Section 33-G of the Act wef 22.3.2016, they would be included within the meaning of word “employee” defined in Rule 5(g) of the Rules' 1964. As per Rules 19 and 21 of the Rules' 1964, an employee who holds a substantive post of a permanent establishment, having performed ten years continuous service on the date of his superannuation would be entitled for the benefits of pensions and other dues. Under Rule 19(b), while counting qualifying services continuous temporary or officiating services followed without interruption by confirmation in the same or another post shall also be counted as qualifying services. It was, thus, held that from reading of Rule 19(a) and (b) and Rule 21, the requirement is that;- (i) the concerned employee have held a substantive