Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:80164-DB Court No. - 29 Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 46 of 2025 Appellant :- Kripa Shankar Ojha Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Shatrughan Sonwal,Shivendu Ojha Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J. Hon'ble Praveen Kumar Giri,J. 1. Learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant, whereby, the order dated 15.12.2020 fixing the pension of the appellant was challenged. The petitioner submitted before the learned Single Judge that though the concerned department where he was working had proposed determination of his pension by counting his ad-hoc services rendered from 1984 to 1999 but such period was excluded only because an objection was raised by the treasury whereafter the benefit has been restricted only from the date of regularization. 2. Sri. R.K. Ojha, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the appellant has placed reliance upon rule 3(8) of the U.P. Retirement Benefits Rules 1961 to submit that ad-hoc/temporary services rendered by the appellant followed with his regularization is liable to be counted towards qualifying service for payment of pension. 3. Learned Single Judge has, however, dismissed the writ petition after noticing the fact that the appellant alongwith other was regularized in service on their undertaking that they would withdraw the writ petition, thereafter that their services were regularized w.e.f. 30.03.1999. 4. Sri Ojha appearing for the appellant argues that though the writ petitioners withdrew their grievance and agreed to their regularization w.e.f. 30.03.1999 but that would not mean that they have given up the statutory benefit available to them in terms of rule 3(8) of 1961 Rules. It is also submitted that the validation Act has otherwise come much after the retirement of the appellant and consequently it cannot be given a retrospective application. 5. Sri Sharad Chandra Upadhyay, learned State counsel does not dispute the fact that validation Act of 2021 has come much later by when the appellant had already retired. 6. On the previous occasion, when the matter was heard we invited instructions from the respondents, which are taken on record. 7. The appellant has also pleaded that other persons who were similarly placed and were regularized along with the appellant are given benefit of rule 3(8) for the purposes of counting of qualifying service. 8. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we, therefore, find substance in the appellant's contention that his pension was required to be calculated keeping in view the provisions of rule 3(8) of the U.P. Retirement Benefits Rules 1961. The authorities apparently have not examined the claim of the appellant in that regard. The mere fact that appellant had withdrawn the earlier writ petition on the condition that he would be regularized would not mean that statutory benefits available under the U.P. Retirement Benefits Rules 1961 would not be available to the appellant. 9. In that view of the matter, we modify the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge on 12.12.2024 and dispose of the special appeal with a direction upon respondent nos. 2 and 4 i.e. Director Pension Directorate, U.P. Indra Bhawan, District Lucknow and District Magistrate, District Prayagraj to get the claim of the appellant examined with reference to rule 3(8) of U.P. Retirement Benefits Rules 1961 and after considering the plea that such benefit has been extended to other persons similarly placed an appropriate order would be passed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Order Date :- 15.5.2025 K.K. Maurya Digitally signed by :- KAMLESH KUMAR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad