HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - A No. - 10916 of 2020 Court No. - 38 HON'BLE DONADI RAMESH, J. 1. The first writ petition No.9711 of 2019 is filed for the following relief:- "(i) Issue a writ, order in the nature of mandamus, directing the government respondent to release the pension of the petitioner forthwith and also pay the arrear of pension along with admissible interest. (ii). Issue a writ, order in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to decide the last representation of the petitioner dated 22.05.2019 by releasing the pension forthwith." 2. The present writ petition is filed for the following relief:- "(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondents to release the family pension of the petitioner along with arrears forthwith. (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to decide the representation dated 02.07.2020 of the petitioner by by releasing the family pension along with arrears forthwith." 3. Initially the petitioner has filed writ petition No. 9711 of 2019 for release of pensionary benefits forthwith by considering the representation dated 25.05.2019. The said writ petition is filed by Assistant Teacher, L.T. Grade while pending the writ petition, the petitioner died and wife of the deceased has filed Writ Petition No.10916 of 2020 for release of family pension. 4. The whole controversy involved in the present writ petition is that, though the petitioner was appointed in the fifth-respondent Institution on 11.09.1991 and his appointment was not approved by the fourth-respondent on the Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Dharmendra Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Parvati .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 4 Others .....Respondent(s) ground of ban imposed. The petitioner filed Writ Petition No.32587 of 1991 and as per the directions issued in the said writ petition dated 09.12.1991, the respondents have released the salaries. While pending the writ petition the Committee of Management has forwarded the papers pertaining to the petitioner for regularization of his services vide letter dated 10.11.2009 and pending the proceedings the petitioner has retired from service on 31.03.2019. Despite repeated requests the respondents have not released the retirement benefits, hence, he made a representation dated 22.05.2019 and the said requests has not been considered the petitioner has filed Writ Petition No.9711 of 2019. While pending the said writ petition, the petitioner has died, hence, the wife of the deceased has filed Writ Petition No.10916 of 2020. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that, the respondents have not considered and released the pension only on the ground of non- regularization of the services of the petitioner and the said issue was already considered by this Court in several judgments more specifically in Writ A No.5737 of 2018 (Ishrat Jahan Vs. State of U.P. and 3 Others), wherein this Court has passed the following order on 07.03.2018, the operative portion reads as follows:- "9. The appointment of the petitioner was made on ad hoc basis. The institution where the petitioner was appointed as ad hoc teacher is governed by the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (in short Act,1921) and Act No. 5 of 1982. In the Act, 1921 the word 'ad hoc' or 'temporary' is not defined. Section 16-E deals with the appointment of teachers in Intermediate Colleges; under Section 16E (11) the temporary appointment were permissible only against a temporary vacancy caused by grant of leave to a incumbent for a period not exceeding six months. Chapter II of the Regulations framed under the Act, 1921 deals with the appointment of Heads of the institution and teachers. Proviso to Regulation-2 sub-clause (1) also permit to make appointment against a temporary vacancy caused by grant of leave for a period not exceeding six months or by death, retirement or by suspension. 10. The State Government amended U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 drastically by U.P. Secondary Education Laws (Amendment) Act, 1975 (U.P. Act No. 26 of 1975). The same difficulties arose due to said amendment and as such, the State Government vide Notification dated 18th August, 1975 issued U.P. Secondary Education (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 1975 in respect of substantive or leave vacancy or any vacancy existing or occurring during the academic session of the head of the institution of teachers. For the first time, the management was empowered to make ad hoc appointment in the manner provided under the said order. The State Government in WRIA No. 10916 of 2020 2 order to overcome further difficulties which arose, issued Removal of Difficulties Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Seventh orders between the years 1975 -1977. There is no need to go into details of those orders as it is not relevant for the issue involved in the present case. Suffice would be to say, that for the first time, the concept of ad-hoc appointment was introduced under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act,1921. 13. Concededly, the petitioner was initially appointed as ad hoc teacher, her appointment was made against the short term vacancy. She worked for more than 25 years and reached her age of superannuation on 1.7.2017 (under sessions benefit upto 31.3.2018). 17. The short question which need determination in this case is whether the petitioner who was appointed on adhoc basis and also superannuated in the same capacity without her regularisation can be held to work on a regular basis. The terms under "ad hoc" "stopgap" and "fortuitous" came to be considered by the Supreme Court in the case of Rudra Kumar Sain v. Union of India, (2000) 8 SCC 25. The Court found that a person, who has a requisite qualification and who is appointed with the approval of the appropriate authority and if he is allowed to continue on the post for a considerable long time then such appointment cannot be held to be stopgap/ fortuitous or purely adhoc appointment. The Supreme Court observed as under :- "In service jurisprudence, a person who possesses the requisite qualification for being appointed to a particular post and then he is appointed with the approval and consultation of the appropriate authority and continues in the post for a fairly long period, then such an appointment cannot be held to be "stopgap or fortuitous or purely ad hoc". 22. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that petitioner is entitled for the post retiral benefits as her appointment was made in terms of the statutory Rules and the same was also approved by the District Inspector of Schools by an order dated 8.5.2013. Admittedly, on account of an interim order dated 20.1.2004 passed in Writ Petition No.38769 of 2000, the petitioner continued to work in the institution and finally retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 1.7.2017 (worked under the sessions benefit upto 31.3.2018) and she worked uninterruptedly for more than 25 long years." 6. Based on the above observations, the Court clearly held that regularization is not mandatory for release of the pension and accordingly the petitioner in Writ Petition No.9711 of 2019 is entitled for release of pensionary benefits, as the petitioner in the said writ petition has died, therefore, the wife of the deceased is entitled for release of family pension. 7. Considering the submission and on perusal of order passed by this Court WRIA No. 10916 of 2020 3 in the above referred judgment, this writ petition is also disposed of by allowing the Writ Petition No.10916 of 2020, directing the respondents to release all family pension and retirement benefits which are due to the petitioner forthwith. This exercise should be completed within a period of three months from today. September 4, 2025 AdityaG WRIA No. 10916 of 2020 4 (Donadi Ramesh,J.) Digitally signed by :- ADITYA GAUTAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad