HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - A No. - 11749 of 2020 Court No. - 38 HON'BLE DONADI RAMESH, J. 1. The present writ petition is filed for the following relief:- "(a). a writ, order or direction commanding the respondents to sanction Pension to the petitioner, and to disburse the same regularly every month including the arrears of Pension from 01.04.2020 till date along with interest at such penal rate, as may be specified by this Hon'ble Court, within a period to be specified by this Hon'ble Court. (b). a writ, order or direction commanding the respondents to sanction all retiral benefits of the petitioner and to disburse the same along with interest at such penal rate, as may be specified by this Hon'ble court, within a period to be specified by this Hon'ble Court. (c) a writ, order or direction of a suitable nature commanding the respondents not to insist upon production of a copy of the order regularizing the services of the petitioner, as regularization u/s 33-A was automatic by operation of law;" 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that he was granted an ad-hoc appointment on the post of Lecturer in Geography under Section 18 of the U.P. Secondary Education (Services Selection Board) Act, 1982 by means of an order of the Authorised Controller of the said Institution. The petitioner was appointed against the substantive vacancy of Lecturer in Geography upon retirement of one Maan Singh on 30.06.1988. Thereafter, there was a substantive vacancy of Principal in the fifth-respondent College and the petitioner was appointed on 06.06.2016 as Officiating Principal in the fifth- respondent Institution. The salary was sanctioned to the petitioner on the post of Principal by the District Inspector of Schools w.e.f. 01.08.2016. 3. In view of the said circumstances, as the petitioners have worked more Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Sunil Kumar Srivastava, Sr. Advocate Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Saurabh Kumar Dinesh Kumar Yadav .....Petitioner(s) State Of U P And 4 Others .....Respondent(s) than three decades and his salaries were regularly paid, therefore, it is needless to go into legality or regularity of the appointment of the petitioner and also relying on the decision of the Supreme Court passed in Prem Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others (AIR 2019 SC 4390) which was allowed, wherein it has held as follows:- "33. The question arises whether the imposition of rider that such service to be counted has to be rendered in-between two spells of temporary or temporary and permanent service is legal and proper. We find that once regularization had been made on vacant posts, though the employee had not served prior to that on temporary basis, considering the nature of appointment, though it was not a regular appointment it was made on monthly salary and thereafter in the pay scale of work-charged establishment the efficiency bar was permitted to be crossed. It would be highly discriminatory and irrational because of the rider contained in Note to Rule 3(8) of 1961 Rules, not to count such service particularly, when it can be counted, in case such service is sandwiched between two temporary or in-between temporary and permanent services. There is no rhyme or reason not to count the service of work- charged period in case it has been rendered before regularisation. In our opinion, an impermissible classification has been made under Rule 3(8). It would be highly unjust, impermissible and irrational to deprive such employees benefit of the qualifying service. Service of work-charged period remains the same for all the employees, once it is to be counted for one class, it has to be counted for all to prevent discrimination. The classification cannot be done on the irrational basis and when respondents are themselves counting period spent in such service, it would be highly discriminatory not to count the service on the basis of flimsy classification. The rider put on that work-charged service should have preceded by temporary capacity is discriminatory and irrational and creates an impermissible classification. 34. As it would be unjust, illegal and impermissible to make aforesaid classification to make the Rule 3(8) valid and non discriminatory, we have to read down the provisions of Rule 3(8) and hold that services rendered even prior to regularisation in the capacity of work-charged employees, contingency paid fund employees or non- pensionable establishment shall also be counted towards the qualifying service even if such service is not preceded by temporary or regular appointment in a pensionable establishment. 35. In view of the note appended to Rule 3(8), which we have read down, the provision contained in Regulation 370 of the Civil Services Regulations has to be struck down as also the instructions contained in Para 669 of the Financial Handbook. "36. In view of reading down Rule 3(8) of the U.P. Retirement Benefits Rules, 1961, we hold that services rendered in the work-charged establishment shall be treated as qualifying service under the aforesaid rule for grant of pension. The arrears of WRIA No. 11749 of 2020 2 pension shall be confined to three years only before the date of the order. Let the admissible benefits be paid accordingly within three months. Resultantly, the appeal filed by the employees are allowed and filed by the State are dismissed." 4. Mainly, the claim of the petitioner is that the petitioner was appointed in the year 1988 on substantive vacancy and his appointment was approved by the District Inspector of Schools Mainpuri vide its order dated 05.06.1989. Undisputedly the petitioner has continued to work in the Institution till his retirement i.e. 31.03.2020. In the said circumstances, as the petitioner has worked in continuity since 1988 to 2020. 5. In view of Section 33-A of the U.P. Secondary Education (Service Selection Board) Act 1982 (hereinafter referred to as "Act of 1982"), the petitioner's service is deemed to be regularized. To support his contention learned Senior Counsel Shri Ashok Khare, further has relied on Section 33- A (1-B) of the Act of 1982, which reads as below:- "33-A. Regularization of certain appointment. -(1-B) Every teacher directly appointed after June 12, 1985 and before May 13, 1989 on ad hoc basis against a substantive vacancy in the Certificate of Teaching Grade in accordance with para 2 of the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Commission (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 1981, as amended from time to time, who possess the qualifications prescribed under, or is exempted from such qualification in accordance with the provisions of the Intermediate Education Act, 1921, shall with effect from the commencement of the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Commission and Selection Boards (Amendment) Act, 1991, be deemed to have been appointed in a substantive capacity provided such teacher has been continuously serving the Institution from the date of such ad hoc appointment the date of such commencement." 6. In view of the above said provision the teachers who were appointed against the substantive vacancy and have possessed the qualification prescribed under the Act shall with effect from the date of such commencement be deemed to have been appointed in a substantive capacity. Accordingly, by taking the facts into consideration and as the petitioner has been appointed on a substantive vacancy and continued till 2020, hence he is covered under Section 33-A (1-B) of the Act of 1982, which regularize the services/ appointment of the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner is entitled for release of the pension and other retiral benefits as she has continued in service from 1988 to 2020. WRIA No. 11749 of 2020 3 7. Though, the respondents have filed their counter affidavit in which they have admitted about the appointment of the petitioner and approval is made on such appointment by the District Inspector of Schools in his order dated 05.06.1989 and they have also admitted with regard to continuation of service of the petitioner and payment of salaries. And as far as the claim made by the petitioner under Section 33-A in his affidavit in paragraph 13, is not specifically denied in their counter affidavit. 8. Considering the submissions and on perusal of the facts noted above, as the petitioner is appointed and continued till his retirement i.e. from 08.07.1988 to 31.03.2020 and as the appointment was approved and has also got the benefit as per Section 33-A of the U.P. Secondary Education (Service Selection Board) Act 1982. In view of the said circumstances, it is considered that the appointment of the petitioner is deemed to be regularized as per Section 33-A (1-B) and he is entitled to retiremental benefits. Accordingly, this Court held that the petitioner is entitled for all retiremental benefits. 9. Accordingly, the present writ petition is allowed with a direction upon the respondents to calculate the retirement benefits and release all pensionary benefits regularizing the services of the petitioner, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. September 24, 2025 AdityaG WRIA No. 11749 of 2020 4 (Donadi Ramesh,J.) Digitally signed by :- ADITYA GAUTAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad