ALLAH RAHAM, J. - (1.) HEARD the learned Standing Counsel for the pe­titioners and Sri Hemendra Pratap learned Counsel for the opposite party No. 1.
(2.) THE petitioners have filed the instant writ petition against the judgment and order dated 25.10.2004 passed by the State Public Services Tribunal Lucknow by which the Claim Petition preferred by the opposite party No. 1 was partly allowed and the petitioners were directed to pay the pension amount, gratuity and 10% of the G.P.F. with interest @ 9% per annum within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order. The only point which the learned Standing Counsel has pressed before us is that the opposite party No. 1 was considered for regularization vide order dated 12.9.1997 but he was not found fit for regularization and as such he is not entitled for any pensionary benefits being an ad-hoc employee till his retirement. The learned Counsel for the opposite party No. 1 submits that there is no illegality in the impugned judgment and order dated 25.10.2004 passed by the State Public Services Tribunal, Lucknow. He further submits that the Tribunal after considering the decision of this Court reported in 1990 (4) S. L. R. 72, Hari Shanker Asopa v. State of U.P. and another has held that the temporary Government servant can­not be denied pensionary benefit.
(3.) WE have considered the submissions of the learned Counsel for the par­ties and gone through the record.;