Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:3328 Court No. - 6 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 599 of 2025 Petitioner :- Mohd. Ziauddin Siddiqui And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Agricultural Marketing And Agriculture Foreigh Trade And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rakesh Chandra Tewari,Shahjabeen Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for the State. 2. Present writ petition is filed by the petitioners challenging the impugned action of opposite parties whereby the respondents have denied the service benefits for the purpose of pension, gratuity, and other retiral benefits. 3. The petitioners were appointed on the post of Subordinate Agriculture Marketing Inspector, Grade-II on adhoc basis on 30.6.1990 and 12.6.1991 respectively and their services were regularized on 14.08.2014. The petitioners retired on 31.10.2022 and 31.3.2023 respectively. 4. Similar controversy has already been adjudicated by this Court by means of judgment and order dated 17.2.2023 passed in a bunch of writ petitions, leading one is Writ-A No.8968 of 2022, wherein issue relating to interpretation and application of Section 2 of the Act of 2021 for counting qualifying service for the purpose of pension with regard to adhoc employees has been dealt with in detail by this Court. Relevant portion of the said judgment reads: "..19. The very initial appointment letters show that petitioners were appointed against substantive posts on adhoc basis. Since their appointment is against a substantive post, hence, they are squarely covered even by Section 2 of the Act of 2021 as it stands. Further, in view of interpretation as given above to Section 2 of the Act of 2021 and it is held that the services performed in temporary or permanent nature need to be counted for pensionary purposes, otherwise, it again would be hit by the judgment of the Supreme Court in case of Prem Singh (supra), thus, there can be no dispute that all the petitioners are are entitled for counting of services rendered by them as ad-hoc employees for pensionary purposes. In view of above, all the impugned orders are set aside. .... 22. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, all the orders impugned in the writ petitions are passed either on the ground that they are covered by the Ordinance/Act of 2021 or they were not party in case of Prem Singh (supra) or without considering the judgment of Prem Singh (supra) and hence, the same are squarely covered by the finding given above. Therefore, the impugned orders cannot stand and are set aside. However, petitioners shall be entitled to past pensionary benefits for last three years only. 23. All the writ petitions are allowed." 5. Since grievance of the petitioners in the present petition is similar to one which has already been adjudicated by this Court in the aforesaid case, the benefit of the aforesaid judgment and order dated 17.2.2023 shall also be made available to the present petitioners in the same terms. 6. Learned counsel for petitioner has also placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in the case of Lt. Col. Suprita Chandel Vs. Union of India (Civil Appeal No. 1943 of 2022) dated 09.12.2024 where Hon'ble the Supreme Court has held that the State Government should extend the benefit of directions of the courts to all the government servants so that all the government servants do not approach in the court for seeking similar benefits, Paragraph nos. 14 & 15 are quoted as under:- "14. It is a well settled principle of law that where a citizen 10 aggrieved by an action of the government department has approached the court and obtained a declaration of law in his/her favour, others similarly situated ought to be extended the benefit without the need for them to go to court. [See Amrit Lal Berry vs. Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi and Others, (1975) 4 SCC 714] 15. In K.I. Shephard and Others vs. Union of India and Others, (1987) 4 SCC 431, this Court while reinforcing the above principle held as under:- ?19. The writ petitions and the appeals must succeed. We set aside the impugned judgments of the Single Judge and Division Bench of the Kerala High Court and direct that each of the three transferee banks should take over the excluded employees on the same terms and conditions of employment under the respective banking companies prior to amalgamation. The employees would be entitled to the benefit of continuity of service for all purposes including salary and perks throughout the period. We leave it open to the transferee banks to take such action as they consider proper against these employees in accordance with law. Some of the excluded employees have not come to court. There is no justification to penalise them for not having litigated. They too shall be entitled to the same benefits as the petitioners. ?.? (Emphasis Supplied)" 7. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. However, petitioners shall be entitled to past pensionary benefits for last three years only. Payment shall be made to petitioners expeditiously. (Alok Mathur, J.) Order Date :- 20.1.2025 RKM. Digitally signed by :- RAKESH KUMAR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench