HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 358 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 affidavit. 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. After hearing the parties what comes out is that the respondent herein was appointed on ad-hoc basis as Consolidation Lekhpal on 19.07.1989. There is an order on record dated 11.08.1997, veracity of which has not been doubted by the appellants, according to which, the services of respondent-Gokil Ram were confirmed on the post of Consolidation Lekhpal w.e.f. 31.03.1995. 5. 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 11.08.1997, the services of respondent-Gokil Ram were confirmed on the aforesaid post w.e.f. 31.03.1995. It is also noteworthy that there is 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 Deptt. Lko. And 4 Others .....Appellant(s) Gokil Ram .....Respondent(s) an order dated 01.02.2001 on record from which it comes out that the respondent/petitioner after his confirmation on the post of Consolidation Lekhpal was promoted to the post of Consolidator on 01.02.2001 and subsequently his services were confirmed on the post of Consolidator vide order dated 17.08.2001. The respondent/petitioner was not paid pensionary benefits on the ground that his services on the post of Consolidation Lekhpal were never regularized but the authorities have lost sight of the fact that the regularization precedes confirmation and there is no dispute that respondent's services were confirmed by the order dated 11.08.1997 w.e.f 31.03.1995. There is nothing on record, on the basis of which, it can be held that the orders of confirmation of respondent's services on the post of Consolidation Lekhpal and Consolidator were fraudulent or illegally passed. 6. It being so, we fail to understand as to how at such a belated stage, such a plea could be raised by the State authorities denying pensionary benefits to the respondent. 7. 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 inaction on the part of the State authorities in grant of pensionary benefits, the respondent filed Writ-A No.9611 of 2024 seeking the following reliefs:- "i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the opposite party no.5 to release the pension to the petitioner from 01.01.2024. ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to make payment of gratuity as well as arrears of pension along with interest on the market rate from due date till it is actually paid with all consequential benefits." 8. Learned Single Judge besides issuing direction for payment of post retiral dues to the respondent had also issued direction to the authorities for counting of the respondent's ad-hoc services from 02.08.1989 to 30.03.1995 towards qualifying services for pensionary benefits. SPLAD No. 358 of 2025 2 9. For the reasons given hereinabove, we sustain the judgment of the Writ Court in so far as it directs for payment of post retiral dues to the respondent. However, we find it difficult to sustain the said judgment so far as counting of respondent's adhoc services rendered from 02.08.1989 to 30.03.1995 towards qualifying services for pensionary benefits, in view of the writ petitions wherein, vires of U.P. Qualifying Service For Pension and Validation Act, 2021 has been challenged are pending before this Court. 10. On being confronted, Sri M.B.Singh, learned counsel for respondent submitted that the respondent does not wish that his services from 02.08.1989 to 30.03.1995 be taken into consideration towards qualifying service for payment of pensionary benefits. 11. So far as payment of post retiral benefits on the basis of his services from 31.03.1995 till the date of retirement is concerned, in view of the findings already recorded the pension, gratuity, leave encashment as well as arrears of pension as far as admissible and payable, would be paid to him with interest as permissible under law. 12. 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. 31.03.1995 shall be considered for the aforesaid pensionary benefits and not those rendered prior to. 13. The appeal is allowed in part. September 2, 2025 akhilesh/- SPLAD No. 358 of 2025 3 (Manjive Shukla,J.) (Rajan Roy,J.) Digitally signed by :- AKHILESHWAR KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- AKHILESHWAR KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench