HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - A No. - 28127 of 2019 Court No. - 7 HON'BLE MANISH MATHUR, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned State Counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite parties. 2. Petition has been filed challenging order dated 09.04.2015 whereby representation of petitioner for grant of pensionary benefits while counting ad hoc services rendered by him prior to regularization as qualifying service for pensionary benefits has been rejected. Other concomitant prayer for payment of pension has also been made. 3. It has been submitted that petitioner was initially engaged in service on ad hoc basis on 15.06.1977 whereafter he was regularized in service w.e.f. 22.09.1999 and has subsequently superannuated from service on 31.12.2011 but pensionary benefits were denied to petitioner on the pretext that he has not completed requisite service required for grant of pension. 4. It is submitted that the aforesaid aspect has already been considered by the Supreme Court in the cases of Prem Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others [(2019) 10 SCC 516] and Jaggo v. Union of India and others [2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826] as well as by this Court in the case of Jai Ram Sharma v. State of U.P. and others, Writ-A No. 731 of 2024. 5. Learned State Counsel has refuted submissions advanced by learned counsel for petitioner with the submission that as would be evident from impugned order, petitioner at the time of superannuation rendered only 12 years of regular service and there being no Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Mohd. Shujauddin Waris, Akhilesh Singh, Praveen Kumar Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C Ahibaran Singh Katiyar .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P.Thru Secy.Cultural Affairs Dept. Lko And Ors. .....Respondent(s) provision of including services rendered by him as ad hoc employee, prior to regularization, cannot be counted or taken into account as qualifying service for grant of pensionary benefits. 6. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal of material on record, particularly it is evident from impugned order that petitioner's representation for grant of pension by counting ad hoc services rendered by him prior to regularization as qualifying service for grant of pension has been rejected primarily taking recourse to Regularization 361 of U.P. Civil Service Regulations as well as the fact that there is no provision for counting ad hoc services as qualifying service for pension. 7. It is therefore evident from a perusal of judgment rendered by Supreme Court in the case of Jaggo (supra) that long and uninterrupted service of periods extending well beyond ten years, cannot be brushed aside merely by labelling their initial appointments as part-time or contractual appointment. It was held that since such engagement was not sporadic but recurrent, and akin to responsibilities and work typically associated with sanctioned posts, such services were in fact regular in nature and with the work being performed indistinguishable from those of regular employees. It was also held that decision rendered in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others vs. Umadevi and Others, (2006) 4 SCC 1 did not intend to penalize employees who rendered long years of service fulfilling on- going and necessary functions of the State or its instrumentalities. It was held that procedural formalities cannot be used to deny regularization of service to an employee whose appointment, though termed temporary but performed same duties as being performed by regular employees for considerable period. It was also held that the judgment aimed to distinguish between 'illegal' and 'irregular' appointments with a categorical enunciation that employees whose appointments did not follow procedure laid down in Service Rules was merely irregular and not illegal and were therefore required to be considered for regularization as one time measure. 8. Upon applicability of aforesaid judgments, in the present facts and circumstances of the case, it is quite evident that although petitioner may have rendered ad hoc services prior to regularization but the WRIA No. 28127 of 2019 2 said aspect including that Regularization 361 of the U.P. Civil Service Regulations has already been adjudicated by Supreme Court not only in the case of Prem Singh (supra) but also in the case of Jaggo (supra) whereby it has clearly been enunciated that long services such as that of petitioner who has rendered more than 22 years service as ad hoc employee can be treated to be as qualifying service for grant of pension. 9. In view thereof, impugned order dated 09.04.2015 is hereby quashed. A further Writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding opposite parties is issued to include services rendered by petitioner as ad hoc employee w.e.f. 15.06.1977 till date of regularization as qualifying service for purposes of pension. Appropriate orders with regard to same shall be passed and benefit ensured to petitioner within a period of four months from the date a certified copy of this order is served upon the said authority. 10. Resultantly, the petition succeeds and is allowed. Parties to bear their own costs. November 27, 2025 lakshman WRIA No. 28127 of 2019 3 (Manish Mathur,J.) Digitally signed by :- LAKSHMANA KUMAR TAMMANA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench