JUDGMENT Heard learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the petitioners/State authorities and perused the material placed on record. 2. The petitioners have assailed the judgment and order dated 19th August, 2015, passed by the learned State Public Services Tribunal, Indira Bhawan, Lucknow in Claim Petition No.186 of 2015 (Vishambhar Nath Yadav Vs. State of U.P. and others), whereby the learned Tribunal has allowed the claim petition in favour of first respondent. 3. The learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel has submitted that the learned Tribunal has failed to appreciate the fact that first respondent was appointed purely on ad-hoc basis on the post of Supervisor on 15th December, 1988. His services were regularized on 21st April, 2010. He attained the age of superannuation on 31st January, 2014. The first respondent had discharged the duty in the capacity of regular employee only from the date of his regularization i.e. 21st April, 2010 till the date of his retirement i.e. 31st January, 2014 i.e. about four years, whereas the requisite period for grant of pension is minimum 10 years' regular service. 4. In view of the aforesaid submissions, we have examined the order passed by the learned Tribunal and upon perusal of the impugned order, we found that the first respondent had filed a claim petition before the learned Tribunal challenging the order dated 31st December, 2014, whereby he was denied the pensionary benefits as also with the prayer to grant pensionary benefit by counting his service since 20th December, 1988 to 31st January, 2014. The appointment order of first respondent is on record. A bare perusal of the appointment letter shows that first respondent was appointed against the substantive vacancy of supervisor in the pay scale of Rs.400-615 on ad-hoc basis. He uninterruptedly continued in service as such till the date of his regularization i.e. 21st April, 2010. 5. The learned Tribunal in light of the aforesaid facts read with Rule 3(8) of U.P. Retirement Benefits Rules, 1961 has dealt with the case of first respondent. Rule 3(8) of Rules of 1961, has defined the "Qualifying service", as "Qualifying service" means service which qualifies for pension in accordance with the provisions of Article 368 of the Civil Service Regulations: 6. Rule 3(8) of Rules of 1961, has defined the "Qualifying service", as "Qualifying service" means service which qualifies for pension in accordance with the provisions of Article 368 of the Civil Service Regulations: 6. Provided that continuous temporary or officiating service under the Government of Uttar Pradesh followed without interruption by confirmation in the same or any other post except: - (i) Periods of temporary or officiating service in a non-pensionable establishment. (ii) Periods of service in a work-charged establishment, and (iii) Periods of service in a post, paid from contingencies, shall also count as qualifying service. Note- If service rendered in a non-pensionable establishment, work -charged establishment or in a post paid from contingencies falls between two periods of temporary service in a pensionable establishment or between a period of temporary service and permanent service in a pensionable establishment, it will not constitute an interruption of service." 7. It is not in dispute that first respondent had worked in ad-hoc capacity on pensionable post continuously for about 26 years. Thus, if his ad-hoc services are counted under the definition of "Qualifying service", as has been defined under Rule 3 (8) of Rules of 1961, he would be entitled to get the pensionary benefits. Therefore, we are of the view that the learned Tribunal has rightly appreciated the facts of the case on hand in view of the relevant rules which does not require interference of this Court. In the result, the writ petition stands dismissed.