Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:318 Court No. - 6 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 12753 of 2024 Petitioner :- Siddhanath Yadav Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Ayush Anubhag Lko And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Mohammad Tauseef Siddiqui,Shiv Pratap Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J. 1. Heard Sri Mohammad Tauseef Siddiqui, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Chief Standing Counsel-IV and perused the material available on record. 2. By means of this petition, the petitioner has prayed the following relief:- "i) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding directing the opposite parties to pay post retiral dues and pensionary benefits to the Petitioner by counting his ad-hoc services rendered by him w.e.f. 25.08.1993 in the department along with arrears and interest within the time stipulated by this Hon'ble Court. ii) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding directing the opposite parties to pay post retiral dues and pensionary benefits to the Petitioner by counting his ad-hoc services as has been paid to the other similarly situated employees/Pharmacist of the department alongwith arrear and interest with the time stipulated by this Hon'ble Court. iii) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the opposite parties to make the payment of post retiral dues and pension w.e.f. date of his initial appointment of the Petitioner as per provision of the Uttar Pradesh Qualifying Service for Pension and Validation Act, 2021." 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Pharmacist on ad-hoc basis against substantive post. Later on, his services has been regularised with effect from 25.03.2013. Therefore, the direction may be issued to the opposite parties to pay post retiral to dues and pensionary benefits to the petitioner by counting his ad-hoc services rendered by him with effect from 26.08.1993. He has further submitted that in the similar matters, the Single Judges have passed the orders in favour of the petitioner and challenging those orders the special appeals are pending. One Special Appeal No. 152 of 2021, page 43, whereby, the special appeal was dismissed, the State filed SLP before the Apex Court, page 47, which was also dismissed vide order dated 11.07.2022, however, in some cases, the special appeals are still pending consideration before this Court and the State Government/competent authority has complied with the orders subject to the final outcome of the appeal. 4. Ms Jyotsana Pal has drawn attention of this Court towards one Special Appeal No. 165 of 2022, State of UP Vs. Gulam Sarver, wherein, the judgement passed by this Court in re: Awadhesh Kumar Singh (Supra) has been considered and while considering the aforesaid judgement, the Division Bench has observed that the Single Judge deciding the case in re:Awadhesh Kumar Singh (Supra) has not decided correctly the provision of law. The order of the Single Judge in re: Gulam Sarver has been stayed. Ms Jyotsana Pal has informed that the special appeal in re:Awadhesh Kumar Singh (Supra) bearing Special Appeal No. 180 of 2022 is also pending consideration. 5. On that the learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the special appeals where an employee was appointed on ad- hoc basis against substantive vacancy and his/her services has been regularised later on, his/her appointment has not been treated in derogation of Section 2 of U.P. Qualifying Service for Pension and Validation Act. Therefore, no interim order has been granted by the Division Bench in this those cases. He has also submitted that the Division Bench of this Court has not observed that the order in re:Awadhesh Kumar Singh (Supra) is not proper but it was the submission being considered by the Division Bench. He has also submitted that in the case of Gulam Sarver and Awadhesh Kumar Singh, etc. the payment has been made subject to the outcome of the special appeal. Therefore, he has submitted that the same order may be passed in the present case also. 6. Having considered the submission of the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material on record, I hereby dispose of this petition finally at the admission stage and without entering into the merits of the issue, liberty is given to the petitioner to prefer a fresh representation to the opposite party no. 1, ventilating his grievance taking all pleas and grounds which are available with him enclosing therewith the copy of his earlier representation, if any, which are necessary for disposal of the representation within a period of fifteen days from today and appropriate decision may be taken within a period of six weeks by speaking and reasoned order, strictly in accordance with law and also in the same manner the benefit has been extended to the identically placed employee subject to the final outcome of the special appeal. . (Alok Mathur, J.) Order Date :- 3.1.2025 Virendra Digitally signed by :- VIRENDRA KUMAR GUPTA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench