JUDGMENT : Devi Prasad Singh, J. Heard Shri Vyas Naraln Shukla the learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri Vinay Mishra learned Counsel holding brief of Smt. Nalini Jain for the respondents. 2. Petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved by the order passed by the opposite parties denying the payment of post retiral dues. 3. The brief fact of the case is that petitioner initially appointed on the post of peon on 1.8.1964 in Girls Junior High School, Amethi district Sultanpur. On 22.11.1967, petitioner was transferred to Girls Junior High School, Gauriganj, Sultanpur. With effect from 1.8.1972 petitioner was being paid regular pay scale admissible under Rules. Petitioner was also permitted to cross Efficiency Bar in the year 1981. From 1.1.1986 when salary of the employees were revised in pursuance to pay commission report the petitioner's pay scale was also revised to 750-940. However, petitioner was being paid salary at the rate of Rs. 750 per month. After serving the department continuously from 1964, the petitioner retired from service on 31.10.1997. After retirement petitioner had advanced his claim for payment of post retiral dues. When the post retiral dues not paid to the petitioner, he has filed Writ Petition No. 330 (S/S) of 2000. The writ petition was disposed of finally vide order dated 21.4.2005 directing the opposite parties to decide the petitioner's representation. While considering the petitioner's case in pursuance to order passed by this Court the District Basic Education Officer held that the petitioner is not entitled for payment of post retiral dues as he has served as regular employee only for one year three months, i.e., from 24.7.1996 to 31.10.1997. Under Regulation 447 of the Civil Service Regulation only those employees are entitled for payment of post retiral dues who had rendered 10 years of service as regular/permanent employee. 4. While assailing the impugned order it has been submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner Shri Vyas Narain Shukla that petitioner had served continuously against regular vacancies and he was transferred from time to time from one school to other school owned by the Government. Accordingly the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is even if no formal order was passed before the age of superannuation to make permanent or confirm the services, petitioner is entitled for payment of post retiral dues. Accordingly the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is even if no formal order was passed before the age of superannuation to make permanent or confirm the services, petitioner is entitled for payment of post retiral dues. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court in Union of India (UOI) and Another Vs. R.C. D'souza, (1987) 2 SCC 211 , and Sabir Ali and Another Vs. State of U.P. and Others, (2002) 2 AWC 1566 On the other hand, Shri. Vinay Mishra learned Counsel for the respondents while defending the impugned order submitted that since, petitioner had served as a regular employee only for one year three months he is not entitled for payment of dues in view of Regulation 447 of the Civil Services Regulation which provides that minimum ten years of services shall be necessary as regular employee to claim post retiral dues. Learned Counsel for the opposite parties had relied upon the judgment of Apex Court in Prabhu Narain and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors. 2004 (13) SCC 662. 5. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties at length. From the pleading on record it appears that petitioner has discharged duty continuously right from 1964 till the age of superannuation, i.e., 31.10.1997. The petitioner has served as peon in the department for about more than 33 years owned by the Government. He was transferred from one place to other place and permitted to cross efficiency bar. It appears that during the course of employment all facilities, rules and regulations were made applicable to the petitioner and during the course of employment petitioner was treated as regular employee. In any way petitioner services cannot be treated under stop gap arrangement or daily wager. It has not been disputed that petitioner had discharged duty against the regular post. Hon'ble Supreme Court long back in the case of Baleshwar Dass and Others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, (1980) 4 SCC 226 , held that in case employee rendered services for long period against regular vacancies he or she cannot be termed as ad hoc or temporary Government servant and he or she shall be entitled to be treated as regular employee. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, (1980) 4 SCC 226 , held that in case employee rendered services for long period against regular vacancies he or she cannot be termed as ad hoc or temporary Government servant and he or she shall be entitled to be treated as regular employee. In the case of Baleshwar Dass while defining the word substantive capacity Hon'ble Supreme Court had proceeded to observe as under: 32. What, in the context, is a substantive capacity vis-a-vis an appointment to a post? In our view, the emphasis imported by the adjective "substantive" is that a thing is substantive if it is "an essential part or constituent or relating to what is essential". (Black's Legal Dictionary, 4th Edn. p. 1597.) We may describe a capacity as substantive if it has "independent existence" or is of "considerable amount or quantity." What is independent in a substantial measure may reasonably be described as substantive. Therefore, when a post is vacant, however designated in officialese, the capacity in which the person holds the post has to be ascertained by the State. Substantive capacity refers to the capacity in which a person holds the post and not necessarily to the nature or character of the post. To approximate to the official diction used in this connection, we may well say that a person is said to hold a post in a substantive capacity when he holds it for an indefinite period especially of long duration in contradistinction to a person who holds it for a definite of temporary period or holds it on probation subject to confirmation. 33. Once we understand 'substantive capacity' in the above sense, we may be able to rationalise the situation. If the appointment is to a post and the capacity in which the appointment is made is of indefinite duration, if the Public Service Commission has been consulted and has approved, if the tests prescribed have been taken and passed, if probation has been prescribed and has been approved, one may well say that the post was held by the incumbent in a substantial capacity. In view of Baleshwar Dass judgment (supra) keeping in view the tenure for which petitioner has discharged duty he may be fairly treated as a person who had held office as regular incumbent. 6. In view of Baleshwar Dass judgment (supra) keeping in view the tenure for which petitioner has discharged duty he may be fairly treated as a person who had held office as regular incumbent. 6. In the case of R.C. D'souza (supra) where an employee was permitted to discharge duty for about 20 years continuously Hon'ble Supreme Court held that denial of post retiral dues to such employees shall not be justifiable. Relevant portion from the judgment of R.C. D'souza is reproduced as under: Admittedly the respondent has put in continuous service of more than 20 years in the force and it would be totally unjustified to deprive him of credit of service. Though he may not be entitled to other advantages of such service prior to the date of absorption, in our view, he should be entitled to quote that period for pension entitlement. We, therefore, allow the appeal to the extent that the direction of the High Court to absorb the respondent from the date of his appointment stands set aside and in its place the respondent shall be entitled to absorption with effect from September 20, 1985. 7. In the case of Sabir Ali and Ors. while deciding an identical controversy Hon'ble single Judge of this Court (Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ashok Bhushan) after considering previous pronouncement held that temporary employee who had rendered services for more than 30 years shall be entitled for payment of post retiral dues. Relevant portion from the judgment of Sabir Ali (supra) is reproduced as under: The issue is as to whether the petitioners could have been refused for regularization in the facts of the present case when there was recommendation for relaxing the said deficiency by the Director General himself and further when the petitioners after serving the department for 28 and 26 years have already attained the age of superannuation, it is unreasonable on the part of the State Government to tell the employee after he attained the age of superannuation that he lacks qualification for appointment. In Baleshwar Dass and Others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, (1980) 4 SCC 226 , the Apex Court held in paragraph 6: 6. The main controversy centers round the question whether some petitioners are possessed of the requisite qualifications to hold the posts so as entitle them to be confirmed in the respective posts held by them. In Baleshwar Dass and Others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, (1980) 4 SCC 226 , the Apex Court held in paragraph 6: 6. The main controversy centers round the question whether some petitioners are possessed of the requisite qualifications to hold the posts so as entitle them to be confirmed in the respective posts held by them. The indisputable facts are that the petitioners were appointed between the period 1983 and 1986 ever since, they have been working and have gained sufficient experience in the actual discharge of duties attached to the posts held by them. Practical experience would always aid the person to effectively discharge the duties and is a sure guide to assess the suitability. The initial minimum educational qualification prescribed for the different posts is undoubtedly a factor to be reckoned with, but is so at the time of the initial entry into the service. Once the appointments were made as daily rated workers and they were allowed to work for a considerable length of time, it would be hard and harsh to deny them the confirmation in the respective posts on the ground that they lack the prescribed education qualification. Recently the Apex Court in Gujarat Agricultural University v. Rathod Labhu Bechar and Ors. (2001) 2 SCC 574 . has considered the said issued again relying on Bhagwati Prasad's case (supra) and it was held by the Apex Court in paragraphs 28 and 30: 28. We feel that daily rate workers who have been working on the aforesaid posts for such a long number of years without complaint on these posts is a ground by itself for the relaxation of the aforesaid eligibility condition. It would not be appropriate to disqualify them on this ground for their absorption, hence Clause (a) needs modification to this effect. 30. Thus, in view of their long experience, on the fact of this case, and for the posts concerned the prescribed qualification, if any, should not come in the way of their regularization. Clause (b) provides for the regularization of daily wagers in a phased manner to the extent of available sanctioned post. 8. So far as the case of Prabhu Narain (supra) is concerned the controversy relates to payment of post retiral dues to work charge employees. Clause (b) provides for the regularization of daily wagers in a phased manner to the extent of available sanctioned post. 8. So far as the case of Prabhu Narain (supra) is concerned the controversy relates to payment of post retiral dues to work charge employees. Hon'ble Supreme Court had declined to grant post retiral dues to work charge employee in view of earlier judgment in Raj Narain Prasad v. State of U.P. 1998 SCC (L&S) 1697. The case in hand is fairly distinguishable from the case of Prabhu Narain. 9. Since petitioner had discharged duties continuously from 1964 against regular vacancy it is the solemn duty of the opposite parties to consider and regularize the petitioner's services at an early date. It was because of delayed action on the part of opposite parties to regularize services the petitioner has been deprived from the post retiral dues. Respondents are not justified to deny the post retiral dues only on the ground that petitioner served the department as regular servant only from 24.7.1996 to 31.10.1997. From the record it appears that during entire service career the petitioner was treated as regular employee and served against regular post of Class IV cadre. 10. In view of above, writ petition deserves to be allowed. A writ in the nature of certiorari is issued quashing the impugned order dated 22.9.2005, passed by the Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Sultanpur, a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition with consequential benefits. Further a writ in the nature of mandamus is issued commanding the opposite parties to pay entire post retiral dues to the petitioner treating the petitioner as regular employee. Let necessary exercise be done expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The writ petition is allowed accordingly. No order as to costs.