ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA,J. - (1.) This petition was initially filed with a prayer to command the respondents to grant pensionary benefits to the petitioners from the date of their initial appointment, in light of the order dated 7.11.2006 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 9235 of 1989 as well as the order dated 18.11.2005 passed in Writ Petition No. 20131 of 1989 and also include temporary services of petitioners for the purposes of grant of retiral benefits. By way of amendment, petitioners have challenged office order dated 9.9.2015, passed upon the representations made by petitioners pursuant to the following orders passed in this petition on 22.7.2015:- "Heard learned counsel for parties and perused the record. Learned Standing counsel prays for and is granted six weeks' time to file counter affidavit. Two weeks' time thereafter is granted to learned counsel for the petitioners to file rejoinder affidavit. After hearing learned counsel for parties, in the interest of justice, as an interim measure, it is provided that petitioners are permitted to move individual representation to opposite party No. 2/Commissioner/Secretary, Board of Revenue U.P. Lucknow within two weeks from today in respect to their grievances which they have raised in the present writ petition annexing all relevant documents and materials in support of their case and after receiving the same, opposite party No. 2 shall consider and dispose of by way of speaking and reasoned order in accordance with law within a further period of four weeks thereafter. List after eight weeks." Petitioners by the same amendment have also challenged their regularization order dated 5.4.2007, in so far as it regularizes the services of petitioners w.e.f. 5.4.2007. A prayer is further made to direct the respondents to treat the petitioners as regularized from the date of their initial appointment.
(2.) Petitioners were initially engaged as Seasonal Collection Amin at District Deoria, on different dates in the years 1975, 1976 and 1977. They claimed to have been appointed against post of Collection Amin lasting throughout the year on different dates from 2nd December, 1986 to 27th April, 1989. The Board of Revenue appears to have issued certain directions on 1.7.1987 and 16.11.1987 asking all District Magistrates to cancel the services of temporary and ad hoc Amins, pursuant to which services of petitioners were also terminated on 16.10.1989. An interim order came to be passed in writ petition No. 9235 of 1989 filed by petitioners on 27.10.1989, and the writ petition was ultimately disposed of, vide following orders passed on 7.11.2006:- "Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. It emerges from record that the petitioners were engaged as Seasonal Collection Amin in District Deoria during 1976. Details of their initial appointments have been indicated in para 5 of the writ petition. On 01.07.1987 and 16.11.1987 the Board of Revenue directed all the District Magistrate in the State to cancel the service of temporary workers and ad hoc employees. In furtherance of the said order, the petitioners' services were terminated on 16.10.1989. This order was challenged by filing the present writ petition and interim order was granted on 27.10.1989 by a Division Bench of this Court allowing the petitioners to continue in the services. Accordingly, the petitioners have been continuing in the services for the last about 30 years. The grievance of the petitioners is that they have not been regularized in the services. This Court had passed a judgment on 04.04.1997 but the same was assailed by the State Government by filing special appeal before a Division Bench of this Court. The Division Bench has been pleased to remand the matter for hearing it on merits. The petitioners have demonstrated that they were initially appointed as Seasonal Collection Amin on various dates in the year 1975, 1976 and 1977. This fact has not been entertained by filing a counter affidavit. However, the petitioners are still continuing in the services. Subsequent to filing of the writ petition two sets of regularization of Rules have been implemented in the revenue department one is U.P. Amin rule. The petitioners' cases are covered by both the sets of the rules specially the ad hoc rule 2001, as amended up to date. In view of above, it can be provided that the petitioners' cases deserve to be considered for regularization in the light of the aforementioned service rules. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The opposite parties are directed to consider the case of the petitioners for regularization under the relevant regularization rules. Appropriate orders shall be passed within four months from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment and order. The petitioner's have already put in more than 30 years services and there is nothing against the conduct and performance of the petitioners. In view of this fact and subsequent developments the impugned order of termination issued on 16.10.1989 is quashed."
(3.) It is on record that pursuant to the orders passed by this Court, services of petitioners came to be regularized w.e.f. 7.11.2006. Some of the petitioners were also regularized on 24.1.2007. It is admitted that regularization of all the petitioners is after 1.4.2005 when the scheme of contributory pension was introduced replacing pension payable under the U.P. Retirement Benefits Rules, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules of 1961'). Petitioner Brahamanand Singh and some others, however, were granted benefit of pension, which has subsequently been withdrawn, giving rise to filing of this writ petition in the year 2015.;