The court confirmed that employees' past service before regularization must be counted for pension eligibility, and delays in regularization by the State do not negate their entitlement.

JUDGMENT :

Praveen Kumar Giri, J.

1. These appeals arise out of judgments delivered by the learned Single Judge in a batch of writ petitions holding the respondents/writ petitioners entitled to retiral benefits under the Uttar Pradesh Palika (Centralised) Service Retirement Benefits Rules of 1981 by counting their past services rendered before their regularization also for the purpose of fixing their pension. For coming to such conclusion, the learned Single Judge has placed reliance upon the judgment in PremSingh vs. State of U.P. and others, (2019) 10 SCC 516 as well as the decision in Uday Pratap Thakur and another vs. State of Bihar and others , 2023 (0) Supreme (SC 429) .

2. Controversy raised in all the matters are more or less similar. We have accordingly taken the case of Shri Chandra Mohan Yadav as a leading case. Shri Yadav was appointed as Junior Engineer (Civil) in Nagar Nigam on contract basis in the year 1987. He was subsequently given ad hoc appointment pursuant to a Government Order dated 7.3.1995. His services came to be regularised on 26.2.2008. He, thereafter, retired from service on 31.7.2022. Pensionery benefits, however, were not extended to the Shri Yadav, on account of which he approached this Court by filing Writ A No. 6344 of 2023 which has been allowed by the learned Single Judge vide judgment and order dated 30.5.2023.

3. Nagar Nigam is a statutory body created under the provisions of Uttar Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1916. Service conditions of the persons appointed in such local body are governed by the U.P. Palika (Centralized) Services Rules, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Rules of 1966’). Rule 21 of Rules, 1966, provides for appointment on the occurrence of substantive vacancies from the list prepared under Rule 19 and, by promotion, in accordance with Rule 20. Rule 19 regulates direct recruitment whereas Rule 20 relates to promotion. Rule 31 of Rules, 1966, contemplates ad hoc and temporary officiating appointments which reads as under :

“31. Ad hoc and temporary officiating appointments- Notwithstanding anything contained in Rule 21 the State Government may also make ad hoc appointments or temporary officiating arrangements for the posts falling vacant substantivelv or temporarily.”

4. A provision for regularisation of ad hoc appointments was introduced in Rules, 1966 by way of notification dated 10.04.2003,namely, Rule 21-A. Rule 21-A(1) is relevant for the present purposes and is reproduced hereinafter :

“21-A. Regularisation of Ad-hoc appointments-(1) Any person who-(i) was directly appointed on ad-hoc basis before June 30, 1998 and is continuing in service as such on date of commencement of these rules:

(ii) possessed requisite qualifications prescribed under Rule 12 for regular appointment at the time of such ad-hoc appointment, and (iii) has completed or as the case may be, after he has completed three years continuous service, shall be considered for appointment in permanent or temporary vacancy as may be available on the basis of his service record and suitability before any regular appointment is made in such vacancy in accordance with the provisions contained in these rules."

5. In the case of Shri Yadav as well as in all other matters, the writ petitioners were initially appointed on temporary basis. Having worked as such for several years, they were granted ad hoc appointment in the year 1995. The ad hoc appointment