HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 350 of 2025 Court No. - 1 HON'BLE RAJAN ROY, J. HON'BLE MANJIVE SHUKLA, J. (C.M.Application No.1 of 2025) 1. This is an application seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal supported with an affidvait. 2. Heard. 3. The cause shown for the delay in filing the appeal is sufficient. The application is allowed and the delay in fling the appeal is condoned. (Order on Special Appeal) 4. Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record. 5. After hearing the parties what comes out is that the respondent herein was appointed on adhoc basis as Consolidation Lekhpal on 08.08.1989. There is an order on record dated 29.09.1998 veracity of which has not been doubted by the appellant, according to which, the services of respondent-Pyare Lal were confirmed on the post of Consolidation Lekhpal w.e.f. 19.08.1991. 6. We asked the learned counsel for parties as to where is the order of regularization which should have preceded the order of confirmation, none could place it before us, but it is not in dispute that by the order dated 29.09.1998, the services of Pyare Lal were confirmed on the aforesaid post w.e.f. 19.08.1991. In fact, from the order dated 20.02.2025 Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : C.S.C. Counsel for Respondent(s) : D.K. Singh Chauhan State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Secy. Revenue Lko. And 4 Others .....Appellant(s) Pyare Lal .....Respondent(s) which was impugned before the writ court, it comes out that after the confirmation he was promoted to the post of Consolidator on 01.02.2001 and confirmed on the said promotional post on 14.05.2011. Thereafter, he retired voluntarily as Consolidator on 31.03.2024. The claim of the respondent to pensionary benefits was rejected on the ground that his services had never been regularized, therefore the pensionay benefits were illegally paid to him. However, while passing the said order, the Consolidation Commissioner lost sight of the fact that regularization precedes confirmation and there is no dispute that respondent's services were confirmed by the order dated 29.09.1998 w.e.f 19.08.1991. In the order dated 20.02.2025, we do not find any such finding that the order of confirmation was fraudulent or illegally passed. Moreover, the said order also mentions that the Additional Chief Secretary, on 05.02.2024, had treated the services as deemed to have been regularized accordingly pension of some other officers was paid but respondent was not paid the same. 7. It being so, we fail to understand as to how at such belated stage, such a plea could be raised by the State authorities denying pensionary benefits to the respondent. 8. The requirement of pensionary benefits as per the relevant rule is that the employee should have been confirmed, which the respondent was, but this fact has been lost sight of. Challenging the said order, the respondent filed Writ-A No.2817 of 2025 seeking the following reliefs:- "i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari thereby quashing the impugned order dated 20.02.2025 passed by Consolidation Commissioner, U.P. Lucknow as contained in Annexure No.1 to the writ petition. ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding/directing the opposite parties to count the services of adhoc services of the petitioner w.e.f 19.08.1989 to 19.08.1991 for the purposes of pensionary benefits. iii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding/directing the opposite parties to make payment of Gratuity, Leave Encashment as well as arrears of pension along with interest, with all consequential benefits." SPLAD No. 350 of 2025 2 9. Learned Single Judge apart from quashing the order dated 20.02.2025 has also granted relief no.2. As regards, the validity of order dated 20.02.2025, for the reasons given hereinabove, we sustain the judgment of writ court in so far as quashing the order dated 20.02.2025 is concerned. However, we find it difficult to sustain the said judgment so far as relief no.2 i.e. for counting the respondent's adhoc services rendered from 19.08.1989 to 19.08.1991 for the purpose of pensionary benefits is concerned, in view of the U.P. Qualifying Service For Pension and Validation Act, 2021, the vires of which has been challenged and is pending before this Court. 10. On being confronted, Sri M.B.Singh, learned counsel for respondent submitted that he does not press relief no.2 of the writ petition at this appellate stage. So far as relief no.3 is concerned, in view of the findings already recorded, the gratuity, leave encashment as well as arrears of pension as far as admissible and payable to the respondent, would be paid with interest as permissible in law. 11. In view of the above discussions, we modify the judgment of the writ court to the extent it provides for addition of the ad-hoc services of the respondent while calculating the qualifying services for pensionary benefits/post retiral benefits, meaning thereby, the said services shall not be counted. The post retiral dues shall now be paid accordingly as may be permissible in law. The post retiral dues shall be paid within three months, if there is no other legal impediment. The services rendered w.e.f. 19.08.1991 shall be considered for the aforesaid pensionary benefits and not those rendered prior to. 12. The appeal is allowed in part. September 2, 2025 Renu/- SPLAD No. 350 of 2025 3 (Manjive Shukla,J.) (Rajan Roy,J.) Digitally signed by :- RENU AGARWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench