Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:12346 Court No. - 6 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 2380 of 2025 Petitioner :- Dr.Pradeep Kumar Shukla Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru.Princ.Secy.Lko And 3 Other Counsel for Petitioner :- Mohammad Tauseef Siddiqui,Shiv Pratap Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J. 1. Heard Mr. M. Tauseef Siddiqui, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel who has put in appearance on behalf of the opposite parties. 2. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Medical Officer as per due process of law on 28.02.1992 and in pursuance thereof he joined the post at Rajkiya Ayurvedic Chikitsalaya, District - Chamoli. 3. It is stated that the petitioners were selected in accordance with the Rules and against the clear vacancies. It is further stated that the services of the petitioner were regularized vide order dated 25.09.2009 w.e.f. 16.03.2005 and worked on the post of Medical Officer. His services was subsequently regularized on 16.3.2005 and has been superannuated on 31.12.2024 from the office of Regional Ayurvedic and Unani Officer, Ayodhya. 4. The grievance raised in the present petition is with regard to the non-payment of post retiral dues and pensionary benefits counting their ad-hoc service rendered by them in the Department along with the arrears and interest. 5. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in similar circumstances a Coordinate Bench of this Court has heard the case of Dr. Ram Sharan Tripathi in Writ-A No.15529 of 2018 on 15.09.2021 and while allowing the writ petition had held that the services rendered by the petitioner therein on ad-hoc basis would be counted towards qualifying service and consequently the petitioner was held to be entitled for pension. While allowing the said writ petition, this court had considered the provisions of the U.P. Qualifying Service for pension and Validation Act, 2021. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner, at this stage, submits that the grievance of the petitioner shall be substantially redressed in case opposite party no.1 is directed to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner dated 03.01.2025, contained as Annexure No.6 to the petition expeditiously. 7. Learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State has no objection to the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioners. 8.In view of above, the present writ petition is disposed of finally with liberty to the petitioner to move a fresh representation within two weeks from today before the opposite party no.1- Principal Secretary, Ayush Anubhag-I, Government of U.P. Lucknow, who shall consider and decide the same within eight weeks thereafter by a reasoned and speaking order in the light of the judgment of this Court in the case of Dr. Ram Sharan Tripathi Vs. State of U.P. and others; Writ-A No.15529 of 2018. . (Alok Mathur, J.) Order Date :- 28.2.2025 Virendra Digitally signed by :- VIRENDRA KUMAR GUPTA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench