JUDGMENT : N. Paul Vasanthakumar, J. 1. This L.P. appeal is filed against the order dated 04.09.2014 made in SWP No. 1146 of 2013, wherein the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition filed by the 1st respondent, seeking to quash order dated 29.02.2012 as well as the order passed in April, 1987 to the extent it confirms the services of the writ petitioner with effect from 05.10.1988 instead of 13.04.1987, and gave direction to treat the writ petitioner to have been confirmed as Director Physical Education with effect from 13.04.1987 and accord consideration to count the service rendered by him in the Appellant-University with effect from 27.10.1976 to 13.04.1987 in continuation of service rendered from 14.04.1987 to 04.10.1987, for working out his pensioner benefits and to compute and pay the retiral benefits whatever is due to the writ petitioner in the light of his confirmation with effect from 13.04.1987 within six months. 2. The grievance of the 1st respondent before the learned Single Judge was that he was appointed as Physical Director in Government College of Agriculture Wadoora Sopore on 27.10.1976 and continued in the said post till 1983. He remained as Assistant Professor, Physical Education from 1983 to 1985 and also served as Assistant Student Welfare Officer up to 1985. Pursuant to the advertisement issued by the appellants dated 02.09.1986, inviting applications for the post of Director Physical Education, the 1st respondent applied through proper channel as an in-service candidate on 30.12.1986. The appellants, after considering the exceptional merit and qualification of the 1st respondent, namely, possessing Ph. D in the field of Physical Education and Sports, selected and appointed the 1st respondent as Director Physical Education in the pay scale of Rs. 1200-1900 plus other allowances by order dated 13.04.1987. Despite his selection in a substantive post the order was issued to the 1st respondent on adhoc basis due to technical reason to produce NOC from the employer within a week. The 1st respondent submitted the NOC on 27.04.1987 and later on he was given substantive appointment from 05.10.1987. 3. The contention of the appellants before the learned Single Judge as well as this Court is that the 1st respondent having been appointed as Physical Director on adhoc basis initially till his substantive appointment which was made on 05.10.1987, the adhoc period cannot be counted for pension. 3. The contention of the appellants before the learned Single Judge as well as this Court is that the 1st respondent having been appointed as Physical Director on adhoc basis initially till his substantive appointment which was made on 05.10.1987, the adhoc period cannot be counted for pension. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition, holding that the 1st respondent having been employed in a Government College and having applied through proper channel for the post of Physical Director of the University and having been permitted to be relieved for joining in the University, there was no break in service and the previous employer namely Government having issued NOC, there was continuous service and unless the adhoc service is also counted along with the service given on substantive basis, the 1st respondent will face break in service without any fault on him. The learned Single Judge also considered the fact that the 1st respondent has retired from service and if a technical plea raised by the appellants is sustained, prejudice would be caused to the 1st respondent. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the respondent. We have perused the order of the learned Single Judge as well as the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Service Regulations. 5. Admittedly, the 1st respondent continuously served from 17.10.1976 till his date of retirement. His selection in the University was made on the basis of an application submitted through proper channel. For joining in the University either on adhoc basis or on substantive basis, NOC was also issued by the previous employer and the lien in the parent department was also cut off by a specific order issued by the Government, enabling the 1st respondent to become the Physical Director of the University. It is also relevant to note that the 1st respondent has not resigned from the post at any time and there is no gape between the relieving and joining of the 1st respondent from the previous employment and joining in the University. As there is no break in service and both the services are pensionable services, we are unable to find reason to interfere with the order of the learned single Judge. There is no merit in the L.P. appeal. 6. As there is no break in service and both the services are pensionable services, we are unable to find reason to interfere with the order of the learned single Judge. There is no merit in the L.P. appeal. 6. Consequently the appeal is dismissed with a direction to the appellants to comply with the order of the learned Single Judge within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. No costs.