JUDGMENT : Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, J. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. All the petitioners who were selected in the Bihar Judicial Service Examination and appointed as such came to be, during their period of service while serving in the parent cadre, appointed as ad hoc Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court. They have come up contending that the period which has been rendered as an ad hoc Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, should be counted for the purpose of grant of pensionary benefits. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has cited the judgement in the case of Brij Mohan Lal (1) Versus Union of India [ (2002) 5 SCC 1 ] and Brij Mohan Lal (2) Versus Union of India [ (2012) 6 SCC 502 ]. Learned counsel for the petitioners has further invited the attention of the Court to the judgement in the case of Mahesh Chandra Verma (1) Versus State of Jharkhand & Ors. [ (2012) 11 SCC 656 ] and Mahesh Chandra Verma (2) Versus State of Jharkhand & Ors. [ (2018) 7 SCC 270 ]. The fifth judgement cited by the learned counsel is the latest pronouncement of the Apex Court in the case of Kum C. Yamini Versus The State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr., decided on 14th of August, 2019 by Three-Judges Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court. 4. We have examined the contents of all the aforesaid decisions and what can be culled out therefrom is that the period of service rendered as an Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court cannot be counted for the purpose of seniority. However, such period having been rendered as ad hoc Fast Track Court Judges by actually dispensing justice, on the facts of the present case, would, obviously, be have to be construed that the petitioners had rendered service while retaining their parent cadre of Civil Judge-Senior Division and therefore the said period can be counted for the purpose of benefits as being member of their parent cadre. 5. This issue is no longer res integra and has been answered by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ram Prabhu Pandey Versus The State of Bihar & Ors. that has been relied upon by the learned counsel for the High Court, Shri Styabir Bharti. 5. This issue is no longer res integra and has been answered by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ram Prabhu Pandey Versus The State of Bihar & Ors. that has been relied upon by the learned counsel for the High Court, Shri Styabir Bharti. A copy of the said judgement dated 26th of February, 2014 has been placed before this Court. 6. We do not find ourselves in any disagreement with the ratio thereof so as to take a different view keeping into consideration the ratio of the judgements that have been cited at the Bar by the learned counsel for the petitioners. 7. In view of this, the prayer made by the petitioners to count their period of ad hoc services as the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court for the purpose of pensionary benefits has to be read as services in the parent cadre of Civil Judge-Senior Division. Moreover, this is not a case where the period of service in the parent cadre has been excluded. 8. In the above background, no such mandamus can be issued as prayed for. 9. The petition is accordingly consigned to records.