HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - A No. - 13626 of 2025 Court No. - 2 HON'BLE MRS. SANGEETA CHANDRA, J. HON'BLE AMITABH KUMAR RAI, J. Heard Sri Badresh Tripathi, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-petitioners and Sri Brij Mohan Singh, learned counsel for the respondent. This writ petition has been filed with the following prayer :- To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 10.02.2022 passed in Claim Petition No. 1007 of 2020 (Mohan Lal Verma Vs. State of U.P. & others) contained as Annexure No. 1 to this writ petition. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the respondent was initially appointed to the post of Overseer on 08.01.1972 in accordance with Rule 31 of the U.P. Palika Centralized Rules, 1966, on a temporary/ad-hoc basis. The services of the respondent were regularized on the post of Junior Engineer on 18.05.1987. Several government orders have been issued from time to time, the latest of which is dated 31.03.2021, wherein it has been stated that the services of a regularized employee, for the purpose of pension and other service benefits, shall be calculated only from the date his services are regularized and he shall not be entitled to count the services rendered in ad-hoc/temporary/seasonal establishments. Learned counsel for the respondent has placed reliance upon the Uttar Pradesh Qualifying Service for Pension and Validation Act, 2021, issued on 05.03.2021 and which shall be deemed to have Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : C.S.C. Counsel for Respondent(s) : Brij Mohan Singh, Devansh Mani State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Prin. Secy. Nagar Vikas Lko. And 2 Others .....Petitioner(s) Mohal Lal Verma .....Respondent(s) come into force on April 1, 1961 and has stated that "Qualifying Service" means the service rendered by an officer appointed to a temporary or permanent post in accordance with the provisions of the service rules prescribed by the Government for the post. It has been submitted that the respondent was appointed in accordance with the service rules, i.e., Rule 31 of the U.P. Palika Centralized Rules, 1966, and therefore his services shall be deemed to be regular from the date of his initial appointment on 08.01.1972. We are not convinced by the arguments raised by learned counsel for the respondent as, had the petitioner's services indeed been regular from the date of his appointment, his appointment letter would not have shown him to have been appointed on a temporary/ad-hoc basis, nor would there have been any need for the Government to regularize him by order dated 18.05.1987. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the Tribunal has erroneously treated the respondent as having been appointed regularly with effect from the date he was appointed on an ad-hoc/temporary basis and has directed payment of arrears along with 10% interest per annum within three months from the date of the order dated 10.02.2022. It has also been submitted that the State has already filed a review application in Claim Petition No. 1007 of 2020 on 29.07.2025, along with an application for condonation of delay, which is pending disposal. In the review application, such facts have been mentioned and it has also been noted that upon recalculation of pension and other benefits, it was found that ₹23,89,605/- has already been paid in excess to the petitioner, which needs to be recovered. If the petitioners are now forced to comply with the impugned order dated 10.02.2022, the public exchequer shall face an additional burden of more than ₹10 lakh. Learned counsel for the respondent has pointed out that his pension was sought to be revised by the petitioners unilaterally without giving him an opportunity of hearing, against which the respondent approached this Court in Writ-A No. 7436 of 2023, Mohan Lal Verma vs. State of U.P. and others, wherein this Court, having considered the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab & Ors. vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer), reported in (2015) 4 WRIA No. 13626 of 2025 2 SCC 334, has directed that the revised pension payment order dated 27.05.2023 shall remain stayed and no recovery shall be made from the petitioner till further orders. The writ petition is pending disposal before the Hon'ble Writ Court. Having gone through the pleadings on record and having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that the interest of justice would be served if this Court issues a direction to the learned Tribunal to decide the review application filed by the State as expeditiously as possible. We dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the learned Tribunal to decide the review application of the State-petitioners as expeditiously as possible, say within a period of three months from the date a copy of this order is produced before it. Till the decision of the review application, the contempt petition filed by the respondent for alleged non-compliance of the impugned order dated 10.02.2022 shall remain in abeyance. November 25, 2025 Ashish Dewal WRIA No. 13626 of 2025 3 (Amitabh Kumar Rai,J.) (Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.) Digitally signed by :- ASHISH DEWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench