JUDGMENT Heard learned counsel for the petitioner-State and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. This petition has been filed challenging the order dated 29.9.2014 passed by the State Public Services Tribunal, Lucknow. 3. By means of the aforesaid judgment, the ad-hoc services rendered by respondent nos.1 and 2 have been directed to be counted towards pensionary benefits and also for allowing the pension to respondent nos.1 and 2. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner-State has tried to draw the attention on the ground that ad-hoc services cannot be counted for the purpose of pensionary benefits, but we find that the two Division Benches in the cases reported in 2006 (1) LBESR 413 (All): Board of Revenue through its Chairman U.P. Lucknow vs. Prasiddh Narain Upadhyay and (1989) 1 UPLBEC 501: Dr. Hari Shankar Asopa vs. State of U.P., have taken a similar view with respect to the same department. The claim of pension and other retiral benefits has been allowed by the two Division Benches in the aforesaid cases. 5. The judgments of the aforesaid two Division Benches have not been challenged in any higher forum. The said judgments have attained finality. 6. Argument of learned counsel for the petitioner-State is that the aforesaid cases are distinguishable on the basis of certain case laws propounded by the apex court, but we find that when the law has been settled by the two Division Benches of this Court in the aforesaid cases, then why we should take a different view in the matter. 7. In Paras-7 and 8 of the judgment passed by the Tribunal, it has been held as under: "7. Petitioners' ld. Counsel has also placed reliance upon a Division Bench case reported in 2006 (1) LBESR 413 (All) of Allahabad High Court Board of Revenue though its Chairman U.P. Lucknow vs. Prasiddh Narain Upadhyay. In this case the Hon'ble High Court has interpreted the term 'qualifying service'. The term 'qualifying service' is defined in Section 1 Chapter 16 of Article 361 of the Civil Service Regularizations, which provides that the service of an officer does not qualify for pension unless it conforms to the following three conditions: - (A) The service must be under Government. (B) The employment must be substantive and permanent. (C) The service must be paid by Government. We may quote para-12 of the judgment herein below: "12. (B) The employment must be substantive and permanent. (C) The service must be paid by Government. We may quote para-12 of the judgment herein below: "12. In the present, so far as the condition Nos. A and C are concerned, they are satisfied and the dispute is only with respect to condition No.B, i.e. lack of permanent character of service. However in our view, the aforesaid provisions stand obliterated after the amendment of Fundamental rule 56 by U.P. Act No.24 of 1975 which allows retirement of a temporary employees also and provides in Clause (e) that a retiring pension is payable and other retiral benefits, if any, shall be available to every Government servant who retires or is required or allowed to retire under this Rule. Since the aforesaid amendment Rule 56 was made by an Act of Legislature, the provisions contained otherwise under Civil Service Regulations, which are pre-constitutional, would have to give way to the provisions of Fundamental Rule 56. In other words, the provisions of Fundamental Rule 56 shall prevail over the Civil Service Regulations if they are inconsistent. Conditions (B) (supra) of Article 361 of Civil Service Regulations are clearly inconsistent with Fundamental Rule 56 and thus is inoperative." The Hon'ble High Court followed earlier judgment of the High Court in the case of Dr. Hari Shankar Asopa vs. State of U.P. and another- (1989) 1 UPLBEC 501. The following part of the aforesaid judgment may be quoted here asunder: - "Clause (e) of Rule 56 unequivocally recognizes, declares an guarantees retiring pension to every Government servant who retires on attaining the age of superannuation, or who is prematurely retired or who retires voluntarily. To be precise, every Government servant (whether permanent or temporary) who retires under Clause (a) or Clause (b), or who is required to retire or who is allowed to retire under Clause (c) of Rule 56, becomes entitled for a retiring pension, of course, the first and third conditions stipulated in Article 361 of the Regulations are satisfied." The ration of the judgment in no uncertain terms provides that the benefits of ad hoc services is to be given to the petitioners while deciding their representation if pensionary benefits will be available to them. 8. 8. The contention of the Petitioners' learned counsel is that O.P.No.1 did not form his own opinion, on the contrary he took legal advise from the Finance Department and based his own opinion upon the advise received from the Finance Department and proceeded to pass the impugned order. This is a case of non application of mind because O.P.No.1 has based his judgment on the advise received from the Finance Department." 8. In Para-9 of the judgment also, it has been held by the Tribunal that the orders dated 22.10.2012, 22.1.2013. 22.3.2013, 15.10.2013 and 25.10.2013, which were filed as Annexure-10 before the Tribunal, the government has also taken the same view and passed orders for the purpose of deciding eligibility of the doctors to get pension. When the government itself has passed the orders, then it is bound by the aforesaid orders and the law laid down by this Court. We do not find any merit in this petition. It is accordingly dismissed.