Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 467 (ALL)

SANTOSH KUMARI v. STATE OF U. P.

2016-02-08

ATTAU RAHMAN MASOODI

body2016
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Attau Rahman Masoodi, J.—Supplementary counter-affidavit filed by learned Standing Counsel is taken on record. 2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner does not wish to file any rejoinder-affidavit to the supplementary counter-affidavit. 3. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel who has accepted notice on behalf of respondents. Factual Background 4. The petitioner was initially appointed as junior clerk on ad hoc basis by order dated 22.4.1989 against a regular post and she was regularized in service on the post of junior clerk under the Uttar Pradesh Regularisation of Ad hoc Appointments (On Posts Outside the Purview of the Public Service Commission) Rules, 1979 as amended in the year 2001 by order dated 30.6.2008. 5. Petitioner has also retired from service in the year 2014 whereafter papers for grant of pension were forwarded to the Treasury for necessary sanction which on being processed have been found to be defective and accordingly her claim for pensionary benefits was returned to the department for rectification of the defects vide letter dated 30.4.2013. The in-action on the part of the State authorities to rectify the defects in terms of the aforesaid letter has given rise to the present writ petition wherein the relief prayed for is reproduced below : “(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to provide the pensionary benefits to the petitioner being a regular employee. (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to consider the service period rendered by the petitioner as ad hoc employee for commutation of pension.” 6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was appointed as ad hoc employee in the year 1989 after following due process of selection who has worked against a regular post and was granted all the benefits of service including selection grade and promotional scale on the completion of requisite length of service from the initial date of appointment. It is further submitted that the case of the petitioner to be considered for regularisation fell due as per the amendment made in the aforesaid rules w.e.f. 20.12.2001 but non-consideration of the petitioner’s claim timely has resulted into an injury which deserves to be considered on the strength of an uninterrupted satisfactory service rendered by her ever since her initial appointment or at least by computing her unblemished service against a regular vacancy after the enforcement of amendment in the regularisation rules w.e.f. 20.12.2001. 7. The continuity of the petitioner as ad hoc employee is not in dispute and availability of regular post is also not disputed by the learned Standing Counsel in the counter-affidavit filed on 12.8.2015. Moreover, the recommendation made vide letter dated 13.1.2016 for grant of post retiral dues also makes a mention of the existence of post against which the petitioner was appointed from the initial stage and the entire services rendered by the petitioner are in a permanent establishment is also not in dispute. 8. The fact remains that the petitioner after being regularised in service by order dated 30.6.2008 has thereafter not raised any grievance against her regularisation for being related back to the due date and a specific grievance as regards the consequence of regularisation being effective from the date of order, on her post retiral benefits, was also not conceived and agitated by her while in service and the issue of confirmation never surfaced before the petitioner till she attained the age of superannuation. It is in this background that the State Government in its stand taken in the counter-affidavit has denied the benefit of pension disallowing her ad hoc service to be treated as computable for the purpose of fulfilling the requisite period of ten years length of service for the grant of pension. The minimum length of qualifying service for the purpose of eligibility for payment of pension to a Government servant undisputedly is ten years. The dispute only relates to the inclusive computation of ad hoc service from the due date or at least from the date of amendment of rules i.e. 20.12.2001 upto the date of regularisation i.e. 30.6.2008 for the purpose of sanction of pensionary benefits. 9. The dispute only relates to the inclusive computation of ad hoc service from the due date or at least from the date of amendment of rules i.e. 20.12.2001 upto the date of regularisation i.e. 30.6.2008 for the purpose of sanction of pensionary benefits. 9. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the authorities ought to have considered her for regularisation soon after the amendment in the Regularisation Rules, 1979 which was given effect to w.e.f. 20.12.2001 and non-consideration of petitioner’s candidature for regularisation as per rules without there being any justifiable reason entitles the petitioner’s ad hoc services to be treated as computable for the purposes of pension. The grievance raised by the petitioner does appear to be just for the reason that a large number of ad hoc employees in various departments have been considered for regularisation from the date of enforcement of amendment Rules, 2001 and this fact has come to be noticed by this Court in several cases. The petitioner has also brought to the notice of this Court an order dated 14.12.2012 which shows that similarly situated persons were granted the benefit of ad hoc services barring the period of three years from the initial date of appointment. 10. Learned Standing Counsel on the contrary has submitted that in view of the provisions of Rule 370 of the Civil Service Regulations, a public servant does not qualify for pension unless the service rendered by an employee is regular and substantive. 11. The stand taken by the learned Standing Counsel appears to be in the light of paragraph-3 (D) of the counter-affidavit, which is reproduced below : “3 (D) - That it is submitted that there is no provision in the relevant service Rules to count the ad hoc services rendered by the petitioner for the purposes of pensionary benefits. In this regard it is relevant to submit here that for extending the benefit of the pension the relevant provisions are Regulation 361, 368 and 370 of the Civil Service Regulations (in short ‘CSR’) Under Article 370 of the Civil Service Regularisations there is no provision for including the services rendered in the Work Charge Establishment alongwith the services in the regular establishment for extending the benefits of pension. The provisions of Section 361, 368 and 370 of the Civil Service Regularisations are being reproduced below for ready reference and kind convenience of this Hon’ble Court : “Section 361 - The service of an officer does not qualify for pension unless it confirms 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.” “Section 368 - The service does not qualify unless the officer holds a substantive office on a permanent establishment.” “Section 370 - Continuous temporary or officiating service under the Government of Uttar Pradesh followed without interruptions by confirmation in the same or any other post shall qualify except — (i) periods of temporary or officiating service in non-pensionable establishment; (ii) periods of service in work-charged establishment; and (iii) periods of service in a post paid form contingencies.” Discussion and Conclusions 12. The controversy centres round the interpretation of Rules 4, 6 and 7 of the Regularisation Rules as amended from time to time in harmony with the provisions of Regulation 370 of the Civil Service Regulation. The relevant provisions of Regularisation Rules are extracted below : The Uttar Pradesh Regularisation of Ad hoc Appointment (On Post Outside the Purview of the Public Service Commission) Rule, 1979 (4) Regulation of ad hoc appointments.——— (1) Any person who —— (i) was directly appointed on ad hoc basis before January 1, 1977 and is continuing in service as such on the date of commencement of these rules: (ii) possessed requisite qualifications prescribed for regular appointment at the time of such ad hoc appointment; and (iii) has completed or, as the case may be, after he has completed three years service as such, shall be considered for regular appointment in permanent or temporary vacancy, as may be available, on the basis of his record and suitability before any regular appointment is made in such vacancy in accordance with the relevant rules or orders. (2) In making regular appointments under these rules, reservations for the candidates belonging to the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Backward classes and other categories shall be made in accordance with the order of the Government in force at the time of recruitment. (3) For the purpose of sub-rule (1) the appointing authority shall constitute a Selection Committee. (2) In making regular appointments under these rules, reservations for the candidates belonging to the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Backward classes and other categories shall be made in accordance with the order of the Government in force at the time of recruitment. (3) For the purpose of sub-rule (1) the appointing authority shall constitute a Selection Committee. (4) The appointing authority shall prepare an eligibility list of the candidates arranged in order of seniority, as determined from the date of order of appointment and, if two or more persons are appointed together from the order in which their names are arranged in the said appointment order, the list shall be placed before the Selection Committee alongwith their character rolls and such other records of the candidates as may be considered necessary to assess their suitability. (5) The Selection Committee shall consider the cases of the candidates on the basis of their records referred to in sub-rule (4). (6) The Selection Committee shall shall prepare a list of the selected candidates, the names in the list being arranged in order to seniority, and forward it to the appointing authority. (6) Appointments be deemed to be under the relevant service rules etc.—Appointment made under these rules shall be deemed to be under the relevant service rules or orders, if any. (7) Seniority.— (1) A person appointed under these rules shall be entitled to seniority only from the date of order of appointment after selection in accordance with these rules and shall, in all cases, be placed below the persons appointed in accordance with the relevant service rules, or as the case may be, the regular prescribed procedure, prior to the appointment of such person under these rules. (2) If two or more persons are appointed together, their seniority inter-se shall be determined in the order mentioned in the order of appointment. The Uttar Pradesh Regularisation of Ad hoc Appointment (On Post Outside the Purview of the Public Service Commission) (Third Amendment) Rule, 2001. (Published on 20.12.2001). 2. (2) If two or more persons are appointed together, their seniority inter-se shall be determined in the order mentioned in the order of appointment. The Uttar Pradesh Regularisation of Ad hoc Appointment (On Post Outside the Purview of the Public Service Commission) (Third Amendment) Rule, 2001. (Published on 20.12.2001). 2. Amendment of Rule 4.—In the Uttar Pradesh Regularisation of Ad hoc Appointments (on posts outside the purview of the Public Service Commission) Rules, 1979 in Rule 4 for existing sub-rule (1)set out in column 1 below, the sub-rule as set out in column 2 shall be substituted, namely : Column 1 Column 2 Existing sub-rule Sub-rule as hereby substituted (1) Any person who—— (1) Any person who—— (i) was directly appointed on ad hoc basis before January 1, 1977 and is continuing in service as such on the date of commencement of these rules: (i) was directly appointed on ad hoc basis on or before June 30, 1998 and is continuing in service as such on the date of commencement of the Uttar Pradesh Regularisation of Ad hoc Appointments (on posts outside the purview of the Public Service Commission) (Third Amendment) Rules, 2001. (ii) possessed requisite qualifications prescribed for regular appointment at the time of such ad hoc appointment; and (ii) possessed requisite qualifications prescribed for regular appointment at the time of such ad hoc appointment; and (iii) has completed or, as the case may be, after he has completed three years service shall be considered for regular appointment in permanent or temporary vacancy, as may be available, on the basis of his record and suitability before any regular appointment is made in such vacancy in accordance with the relevant rules or orders. (iii) has completed or, as the case may be, after he has completed three years service shall be considered for regular appointment in permanent or temporary vacancy, as may be available, on the basis of his record and suitability before any regular appointment is made in such vacancy in accordance with the relevant rules or orders . 13. (iii) has completed or, as the case may be, after he has completed three years service shall be considered for regular appointment in permanent or temporary vacancy, as may be available, on the basis of his record and suitability before any regular appointment is made in such vacancy in accordance with the relevant rules or orders . 13. The petitioner has argued that the requisite three years period of ad hoc service prior to the enforcement of third amendment in Regularisation Rules, 1979 on 20.12.2001 may exclusively be relevant for petitioner’s consideration for regularisation in service but the satisfactory service rendered by her against an existing post from the due date of her eligibility and particularly after enforcement of amendment in the statutory rules on 20.12.2001, is bound to be treated as computable for pension once the petitioner was regularised in service as per rules by order dated 30.6.2008. It is true that the order of regularisation issued on 30.6.2008 is effective from the date of its issuance but in a situation where dereliction of duty on the part of State Authorities is equally made out, the grievance cannot be out rightly rejected and equitable considerations must come into play. 14. In the light of above argument, it is necessary to understand the scheme of regularisation rules before the services of an ad hoc employee may be interpreted as computable or not for the purposes of pension within the scope of statutory provisions as have been placed reliance upon. 15. The regularisation rules in so far as its application to a direct ad hoc appointee lay down a cut of date i.e. 30.6.1998 and the requirement of employee’s continuity in service as on the date of commencement of rules i.e. 20.12.2001 is also provided for under Rule 4 (1) (i). Both these conditions stand met with by the petitioner for the reason that the petitioner was initially appointed on ad hoc basis vide order dated 22.4.1989 and she was continuing in service as on the date of enforcement of third amendment made in the statutory rules on 20.12.2001. The petitioner was also possessed with the requisite educational qualifications at the time of her initial appointment on ad hoc basis and fulfilment of all the above three requirements in terms of Rule 4 (1) (i) & (ii) are not in dispute. 16. The petitioner was also possessed with the requisite educational qualifications at the time of her initial appointment on ad hoc basis and fulfilment of all the above three requirements in terms of Rule 4 (1) (i) & (ii) are not in dispute. 16. The rule that lends support to the claim of an ad hoc employee for computation of his/her ad hoc services for the purposes of post retiral benefits is manifest from the language of Rule 4 (1) (iii) which provides that an ad hoc employee who has completed or as the case may be, after he has completed three years, shall be considered for regular appointment in permanent or temporary vacancy, as may be available on the basis of his record and suitability. This rule in its application is wide enough and also applies to a past claim with reference to cut of date i.e. 30.6.1998 and subject to the satisfaction of other conditions viz (a) availability of vacancy and (b) suitability judged on the basis service record prior to the availability of vacancy temporary or permanent. A complete reading of Rule 4 (1) (i) to (iii) makes it abundantly clear that a person directly appointed as ad hoc on or before 30.6.1998 who is continuing in service on the commencement of rules and is possessed with the requisite qualification on the date of initial appointment and having completed or after he has completed three years requisite service shall be considered for regularisation on the basis of record against an available permanent or temporary vacancy subject to his or her suitability. The statutory obligation on the part of State Government to consider the claim gives birth as soon as upon the enforcement of rules, the vacancy is/was available whether temporary or permanent. In the present case the respondents have not disputed the availability of post/vacancy but what is pleaded is that the petitioner’s ad hoc services cannot be computed in view of the provisions of the Civil Service Regulations. It may be noted that by virtue of Rule-6 of the Regularisation Rules, all appointments under the regularisation rules are deemed as if they are made under the relevant service rules. The regularisation order issued to the petitioner on 30.6.2008 clearly makes out the nature of her appointment to be permanent and the period of probation is also not provided for therein. The regularisation order issued to the petitioner on 30.6.2008 clearly makes out the nature of her appointment to be permanent and the period of probation is also not provided for therein. Regularisation of an employee for the purposes of seniority as per Rule-7 of the Regularisation Rules may be effective from the date of order but for all other purposes the services are to be counted from the ‘due date’ i.e. when regularisation of an ad hoc employee fell due. 17. The plain language used by the rule making authority in Rules 4, 6 and 7 gives rise to two important questions viz (1) whether the authorities are duty bound to consider an ad hoc appointee for regularisation from the due date i.e. on the availability of a permanent/temporary vacancy; and failure on their part to carry out this obligation as per rules would at all entitle an employee for computation of his/her past services for post retiral dues upon the enforcement of statutory rules. (2) Whether an employee who is regularised in service from the date of order under the Regularisation Rules is entitled to the benefit of past services for the purpose of post retiral dues from the due date i.e. when his claim for consideration fell due. 18. In the context of Regularisation Rules, the ‘due date’ on which the right of consideration of an ad hoc employee accrues does not appear to have been dealt with much in the case laws. Having regard to the scheme of Regularisation Rules and particularly Rule 4 (1) (i) to (iii) amended from time to time, this Court is of the opinion that as soon as a temporary or permanent vacancy is/was available, the right of consideration of an ad hoc employee accrues for being considered subject to the fulfilment of other statutory conditions, therefore, the due date of consideration in relation to an ad hoc employee is the date when he fulfils all the requisite criteria prescribed under the rules against an available vacancy whether temporary or permanent. The accrual of right of consideration is the ‘due date’ and it is this date from which a person acquires a right to hold the post and services so rendered from the due date not being fortuitous are bound to be treated as officiating services. The accrual of right of consideration is the ‘due date’ and it is this date from which a person acquires a right to hold the post and services so rendered from the due date not being fortuitous are bound to be treated as officiating services. Once an ad hoc employee whose right of consideration has accrued from the due date in terms of Rule 4 (1) (i) to (iii) is regularised in service later, the past services from the due date i.e. when his right of consideration has accrued as per rules are bound to be treated as officiating services against permanent/temporary vacancy and the same are computable for post retiral dues. In other words the services rendered by an ad hoc employee would not qualify for computation towards post retiral dues so long as a person does not have a right to hold the post and once the right accrues on availability of vacancy permanent/temporary and has subsequently crystallised by a positive act of regularisation in service, the due date becomes significant and the benefits arising therefrom cannot be brushed aside on technical grounds or the default attributable to the employer himself. 19. The regularisation of an employee effective from the date of order issued at a later stage may be decisive for the purpose of seniority under Rule-7, but so far as the benefit of pension is concerned, the past services from the ‘due date’ are liable to be computed for pension due to the reason that an ad hoc employee’s right to hold and officiate on the post held by him stands accrued as per law. It may also be noted that as a consequence of failure to claim the benefit of seniority from the due date, a person may loose his seniority and some other seniority related parities but for the purposes of pension, services so rendered cannot be ignored once an employee is regularised in service as per rules and he has rendered the past services against a post in permanent establishment. 20. The creation of right of consideration from the due date is a legal fiction which advances the cause of substantial justice between the parties on equitable consideration. Such a right is well conceived and is not opposed to the object of Regularisation Rules, 1979. 20. The creation of right of consideration from the due date is a legal fiction which advances the cause of substantial justice between the parties on equitable consideration. Such a right is well conceived and is not opposed to the object of Regularisation Rules, 1979. Reference may be made to para-25 of the decision of Industrial Supplies Pvt. Ltd. and another v. Union of India and others, (1980) 4 SCC 341 and the same is extracted below : It is now axiomatic that when a legal fiction is incorporated in a statute, the Court has to ascertain for what purpose the fiction is created. After ascertaining the purpose, full effect must be given to the statutory fiction and it should be carried to its logical conclusion. The Court has to assume all the facts and consequences which are incidental or inevitable corollaries to giving effect to the fiction. The legal effect of the words ‘as if he were’ in the definition of owner in Section 3(n) of the Nationalisation Act read with Section 2(1) of the Mines Act is that although the petitioners were not the owners, they being the contractors for the working of the mine in question, were to be treated as such though, in fact, they were not so. The oft-quoted passage in the judgement of Lord Asquith in East End Dwelling Co. Ltd. v. Finsbury Borough Council, brings out the legal effect of a legal fiction in these words: If you are bidden to treat an imaginary state of affairs as real, you must surely, unless prohibited from doing so, also imagine as real the consequence and incidents which, if the putative state of affairs had in fact existed, must inevitably have flowed from or accompanied it.......... The statute says that you must imagine a certain state of affairs; it does not say that having done so, you must cause or permit your imagination to boggle when it comes to the inevitable corollaries of that state of affairs. 21. The passage quoted above, in my opinion, does support the reasoning as has been recorded above. 22. The next hurdle coming in the way of present case is the requirement of confirmation under Regulation-370 of the Civil Service Regulations. 21. The passage quoted above, in my opinion, does support the reasoning as has been recorded above. 22. The next hurdle coming in the way of present case is the requirement of confirmation under Regulation-370 of the Civil Service Regulations. From a plain reading of the provisions of Regularisation Rules it is clear that the appointments made under the said rules are permanent and are deemed to have been made under the relevant service rules, if any. The Regularisation Rules do not provide any period of probation, whereas, the relevant service rules may provide for the same. In the present case, the petitioner belongs to the ministerial cadre which is governed under The Subordinate Offices, Ministerial Staff (Direct Recruitment) Rules, 1985. Rule 28 of the service rules prescribes the period of probation as one year extendable to a maximum period of further one year. In the case at hand, even if it is assumed that the petitioner was appointed on probation, in absence of anything adverse being communicated to her, the petitioner would be deemed to have been confirmed on completion of maximum period of two years beyond which the period of probation could not be extended. Confirmation in Government services is an inglorious uncertainty but in absence of any such dispute in the present case, the appointment of the petitioner being substantive and she having completed the maximum period of probation would be deemed as confirmed on the date of retirement, as such, she was rightly recommended for the payment of pension. Reference may also be made to the judgement reported in (2001) 7 SCC 161 wherein para 11 of the judgement reads as under : 11. The question of deemed confirmation in service jurisprudence, which is dependent upon the language of the relevant service rules, has been the subject-matter of consideration before this Court, times without number in various decisions and there are three lines of cases on this point. One line of cases is where in the service rules or in the letter of appointment a period of probation is specified and power to extend the same is also conferred upon the authority without prescribing any maximum period of probation and if the officer is continued beyond the prescribed or extended period, he cannot be deemed to be confirmed. One line of cases is where in the service rules or in the letter of appointment a period of probation is specified and power to extend the same is also conferred upon the authority without prescribing any maximum period of probation and if the officer is continued beyond the prescribed or extended period, he cannot be deemed to be confirmed. In such cases there is no bar against termination at any point of time after expiry of the period of probation. The other lines of cases is that where while there is a provision in the rules for initial probation and extension thereof, a maximum period for such extension is also provided beyond which it is not permissible to extend probation. The inference in such cases is that the officer concerned is deemed to have been confirmed upon expiry of the maximum period of probation in case before its expiry the order of termination has not been passed. The last line of cases is where, though under the rules maximum period of probation is prescribed, but the same requires a specific act on the part of the employer by issuing an order of confirmation and of passing a test for the purposes of confirmation. In such cases, even if the maximum period of probation has expired and neither any order of confirmation has been passed nor has the person concerned passed the requisite test, he cannot be deemed to have been confirmed merely because the said period has expired. 23. Looking to the relevant service rule mentioned above, the Apex Court Judgement lends complete support to the deemed confirmation of the petitioner in service. It may also be noted that the respondents have not pointed out anything adverse regarding petitioner’s work and conduct at any point of time. The determination of suitability of the petitioner for regularisation in service is based on a criteria which is akin to the relevant consideration for confirmation. 24. It may also be noted that the respondents have not pointed out anything adverse regarding petitioner’s work and conduct at any point of time. The determination of suitability of the petitioner for regularisation in service is based on a criteria which is akin to the relevant consideration for confirmation. 24. In a situation where appointments are made as per regularisation rules, the process of confirmation is usually merged in the process of determination of regularisation and separate orders of confirmation in terms of U.P. State Government Servants Confirmation Rules, 1991 are not issued and an appointee regularised in service is deemed to be confirmed from the date of issuance of order and it is for this reason that the regularisation orders do not provide for any period of probation in so far as ad hoc employees are concerned. In the present case, the regularisation order issued in favour of the petitioner on 30.6.2008 does not provide any period of probation and her appointment was treated as confirmed for the purposes of all service benefits from the date of order, therefore, there does not arise any question to doubt the petitioner’s entitlement for post retiral dues on this account. 25. The object of equality in service conditions has not to be lost sight of by the State while discharge of its constitutional obligations and any deviation attempted to prejudice this object deserves to be discouraged. Not only that the conditions of recruitment are to be strictly followed but disparity in the service conditions are also bound to be brought down to the possible extent so that public servants have a strong faith in governance which at no cost can be allowed to be compromised. Failure on the part of State to achieve just and fair treatment amongst equals is constantly raising serious issues impinging on the individual rights and the Courts must come to rescue on noticing the complexity of each case so that judicial dynamism remains alive within the limits of constitutional mandate. 26. A recent judgement rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in Jai Prakash v. State of U.P. and others, 2014(2) ADJ 69 (DB), has also dealt with the issue in the context of pensionable establishments. 26. A recent judgement rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in Jai Prakash v. State of U.P. and others, 2014(2) ADJ 69 (DB), has also dealt with the issue in the context of pensionable establishments. In the present case, the permanence of the establishment is not questionable for the reason that the department itself has recommended the case of the petitioner for pension, therefore, the law laid down by this Court fortifies the petitioner’s claim. The view taken by the Full Bench in Babu @ Babu Ram v. State of U.P. and others, 2016(3) ADJ 149 (FB), also comes to the aid of the petitioner in principle. 27. Having given a careful thought to the provisions of statutory rules, I am of the considered opinion that question No. 1 & 2 framed above are to be answered in affirmative. The Regularisation Rules envisage a statutory duty on the state authorities to consider the claim of an ad hoc employee for regularisation as per rules on the vacancy becoming/having become available and non-performance of this duty would entitle a person regularised in service to claim the benefit of past services for post retiral dues from the due date. 28. In the result, the petitioner’s services rendered w.e.f. 20.12.2001 i.e. date of third amendment in the Regularisation Rules, 1979 as per the prayer made and confined orally in the present case is liable to be entertained for the purpose of grant of pension and her claim to this extent deserves to be allowed. The ground of parity in the light of order dated 14.12.2014 is also left open to considered by the competent authority. 29. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of and a writ of mandamus is issued to the respondents to consider the petitioner’s claim for the grant of pension by allowing her the benefit of past services w.e.f. 20.12.2001 for the purpose of pensionary benefits and the requisite exercise in this regard inclusive of the payment of arrears shall be undertaken and completed by the respondents within a period of three months from the date a certified copy of this judgement is filed before them. 30. No order as to cost.