SANJAY MISRA,J. - (1.) HEARD Sri R. K. Khanna, learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel Sri R. S. Parihar on behalf of the respondents.
(2.) THE petitioner has challenged the order dated 9 -7 -1999 passed by the respondent No. 1 denying the benefit of pension and other retirement benefits to the petitioner. The petitioner contends that he was appointed on a temporary basis by an appointment letter dated 7 -8 -65 in the notified area committee, Jaspur, Nainital. His services were confirmed on 15 -6 - 67. After the enforcement of U.P. Palika (Centralised) Service Rules, 1966, the petitioner was given the benefit of Rule 41 by relaxing the condition of age and educational qualifications by an order dated 24 -9 -1971. It is the contention of the petitioner that upon such an order having been passed the petitioner stood absorbed in the centralized service. He states that initially his appointment was on the post of Overseer. However, the said post was re -named as Junior Engineer. The petitioner was thereafter retired from the service on 31 -8 -98 and he applied for being given the retirement benefits which have been refused by the impugned order.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that once services were confirmed in the notified area committee on 15 -6 -67 and he was absorbed in the centralized services by the order dated 24 -9 -71 then he would be entitled to retirement benefits and the respondents cannot treat him as a temporary or adhoc employee since he continued on the post from the date of his appointment under Rule 21 upto the date of retirement i.e. 31 -8 -98. The petitioner's services cannot be treated as adhoc or temporary.;