Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:74525 Court No. - 7 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 9600 of 2021 Petitioner :- Ram Bhawan Prasad Gupta Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajnish Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Vikram D. Chauhan,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State. 2. The instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed for the following relief:- "(a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned communication letter dated 29.12.2019 passed by respondent no.2 so far as it pertains to sanction of pension. (b) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing and commanding the respondents to forthwith fix the pension of petitioner taking into account his entire length of service from 22.9.1990 till 31.3.2019 within a period to be specified by this Hon'ble court and to make disbursement of monthly pension regularly every month including the arrears of his pension along with interest as much penal rate as may be specified by this Hon'ble Court." 3. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher in the Government Inter College, Paniyara, District-Maharajganj on 4.9.1990. Thereafter the services of the petitioner was regularised on 31.12.1999 and the petitioner thereafter retired on 31st March, 2019. Learned counsel for the petitioner by referring to page 59 of the paper book submits that the total service of the petitioner has been shown as 28 years 6 months 9 days, however, the qualifying service of the petitioner is found to be 19 years 3 months. Learned counsel submits that the qualifying service of the petitioner has been reduced on account of the stand of the respondent that the adhoc service would not be counted for the purposes of pension. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the aforesaid stand of the respondent is contrary to the law laid down by this Court in the judgment Shashi Srivastava vs. State of U.P. and another [2019 (7) ADJ 302 (DB). It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the aforesaid judgment clarify that the adhoc services are liable to be counted towards the pensionary benefits. It is further submitted by learned counsel that under the U.P. Retirement Benefit Rules the qualifying service being continuous temporary/officiating service followed without interruption by confirmation would also be treated for the purpose of qualifying service. It is submitted that the petitioner is entitled to recounting of adhoc service towards the qualifying service. 5. Learned Standing Counsel referred to Uttar Pradesh Qualifying Service for Pension and Validation Act, 2021 to submit that the qualifying service would mean the service rendered by an officer appointed on temporary or permanent post in accordance with the provisions of the service rules prescribed by the government for the post. It is not the case of the learned Standing Counsel that the petitioner has not been appointed in accordance with rules. Even otherwise the adhoc service of the petitioner is liable to be counted under the Validation Act, 2021 as well under the judgment of this Court given in Shashi Srivastava vs. State of U.P. and another (supra). 6. The learned Standing Counsel has not disputed the judgment of this Court given in Shashi Srivastava vs. State of U.P. and another (supra). 7. In view of aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned communication letter dated 29.12.2019 passed by respondent no.2 is quashed so far as it pertains to sanction of pension. Order Date :- 7.5.2025 Kumar Manish Digitally signed by :- MANISH TRIPATHI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad