1

A.F.R

Court No. - 29

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 172 of 2023

Appellant :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others

Respondent :- Surendra Singh And Another

Counsel for Appellant :- C.S.C.

Counsel for Respondent :- Chandra Shekher Singh

Alongwith

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 192 of 2023

Appellant :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others

Respondent :- Nand Lal And Another

Counsel for Appellant :- C.S.C.

Counsel for Respondent :- Anil Kumar Yadav,Anil Kumar

Yadav

Alongwith

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 249 of 2023

Appellant :- Deputy Director Of Education (Secondary),

Aligarh Region And 2 Others

Respondent :- Vishnu Lal Sharma And Another

Counsel for Appellant :- Rama Nand Pandey

Counsel for Respondent :- Indra Raj Singh,Adarsh

Singh,Deo Prakash Singh

Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J.

Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.

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 judgement.

2.

This intra-Court appeal filed by the State and the

2

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 judgement 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

22.03.2016 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. 22.03.2016. 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

3

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 Vs. State of U.P.

& 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. Vs. Sunita Sharma) vide

judgement and order dated 11.06.2020 as also the relevant

statutory provisions, it was held by the learned Single Judge in

the judgement and order dated 30.09.2022 in the case of Nand

Lal Vs. State of U.P. & others Writ A No.12070 of 2022

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 & 4

provides the category of the institution and the employees of

the State Aided Education Institutions to whom benefits under

the 1964 Rules would b