Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:110246 Court No. - 38 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 13569 of 2019 Petitioner :- Smt. Kusum Lata Respondent :- State Of U P And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Prashant Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Donadi Ramesh,J. 1. The present writ petition is filed questioning the order dated 25.06.2019 passed by the second- respondent as a consequential prayer directing the fourth- respondent to re-compute and re- calculate the pensionary and other benefits, due to the petitioner after counting the services rendered by the petitioner as Assistant Teacher in Rastriya Inter College, Sabga, Baghpat from 05.12.1990 to 23.08.1999. Admittedly, the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher in Rastiya Inter College, Baghpat from 05.12.1990 and she continued on the said posts till 23.08.1999. After due selection made by the Commission she joined on the post of Principal. She continued in the said post till attaining the age of superannuation, she was superannuated on 31.03.2018. 2. After the retirement the petitioner has submitted proposals for post retirement benefits based on the same the notices has been issued by the third-respondent to the petitioner who retired on 31.03.2018 and accordingly, the petitioner appeared and submitted a reply on 19.07.2018 but surprisingly without considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and without perusal of the records, the respondents have passed the order on 25.06.2019 without taking the services rendered by the petitioner as Assistant Teacher from 05.12.1990 to 23.08.1999. Aggrieved by the same the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. 3. Based on the above averments learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has contended that the impugned order are contrary to Rule 19-B of the Rules of 1964. According to the said Rules the respondents ought to have considered the services of the petitioner rendered as Assistant Teacher in Rastriya Inter College, Baghpat from 05.12.1990 to 23.08.1999. Hence, the impugned order dated 25.06.2019 passed by second- respondent may be set aside and the matter be remanded back to the authorities for re- consideration. 4. In reply to the said contentions learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has submitted that the service of petitioner as Assistant Teacher were not regularized, as she worked as Assistant Teacher on ad-hoc basis. After resignation she has joined on the post of Principal, based on the selections made by the authorities which is a regular posts. Hence, the authorities have rejected the claim of the petitioner for counting/ computing the service for providing the retirement benefits. 5. Considering the said submissions made by both the counsel and on perusal of the record, the said issue was already decided by this Court in (Sunita Sharma Vs. State of U.P. and 5 Others) in Writ A No.25431 of 2018, on which learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance. The observations made in that writ petition are extracted as below:- "Learned Standing Counsel has obtained instructions, according to which, pension is not payable to petitioner in view of the Government Order dated 18th of October, 1997, which provides that services rendered by a teacher, pursuant to his substantive appointment alone, would be counted for the purposes of determining the qualifying service and that adhoc services would not be included for payment of pension. Subsequent orders of the Deputy Director of Education dated 17.5.2017 has also been relied upon. Yet another Government Order dated 14th of June, 2017 has also been relied upon, which deals with employees engagement in work charge establishment. The Government Order of 14th of June, 2017 apparently has no applicability in the facts of the present case. Learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance upon the provisions contained under Rule 19(b) of the Rules of 1964, which is reproduced hereafter:-. "(b) Continuous temporary or officiating service followed without interruption by confirmation in the same or another post shall also count as qualifying service." 6. Considering the submissions and perusal of the order passed by this Court in the above said judgment where the Court has clearly considered the Provisions 19-B and held that the petitioner's past service is regularized or not, he is entitled to compute for post retirement benefits. 7. In view of the above said observations, the impugned order dated 25.06.2019 is set aside by remanding the matter back to the second-respondent to consider the case of the petitioner based on the observations made in the above judgment and pass appropriate orders counting the past service of the petitioner as Assistant Teacher from 05.12.1990 to 23.08.1999 and release the differential amount. The said exercise should be completed within a period of two months from the date of a receipt of a copy of this order. 8. Accordingly, the present writ petition is disposed of. Order Date :- 10.7.2025 AdityaG (Donadi Ramesh,J.) Digitally signed by :- ADITYA GAUTAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- ADITYA GAUTAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad