JUDGMENT : 1. Sri Satendra Tripathi, learned counsel for the appellant, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Sri Anoop Trivedi, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Vibhu Rai, learned counsel for respondent No.2. 2. The present intra Court Appeal has been filed questioning the legality, propriety and correctness of the judgement and order of the learned Single Judge dated 22.9.2021 passed in Writ-A No. 63 of 2020 (Rajendra Kumar Tyagi vs. State of U.P. and another) whereby and whereunder the writ petition has been allowed holding that the writ petitioner/respondent satisfies the eligibility criteria prescribed under the Retirement Benefits Rules of 2011 and has rendered the qualified service of more than 20 years and stands entitled to retirement benefits and directions has been issued that the writ petitioner/respondent shall be entitled to payment of pension alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of his retirement till actual payment. 3. The writ petition was instituted with the allegation that the writ petitioner was appointed on the post of Legal Assistant consequent to an advertisement dated 18.2.1988 issued for appointment to the posts of Cost Accountant, Assistant Cost Accountant, Legal Assistant and Stenographer Typist. The writ petitioner faced selection and appointment letter dated 7.5.1988 was issued appointing the writ petitioner on the post of Legal Assistant on ad hoc basis till further orders. The writ petitioner joined his services and worked as Law Assistant. Meanwhile, one Sri Naresh Dutt Tyagi who was working as Law Officer with the appellant Development Authority superannuated on 30.9.2000 and he was paid his pension. It was pleaded in the writ petition that the post of Law Officer was sanctioned by the Board of the Ghaziabad Development Authority in terms of the provisions of Section 5(2) of the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973. Subsequently, vide Government Order dated 10.3.2017, the post of Law Assistant and Law Officer were merged and re-designated as Law Officer and the writ petitioner was absorbed on the post of Law Officer in terms of the order dated 15.3.2017. The writ petitioner attained the age of superannuation and retired on 31.7.2018 and submitted his claim for payment of pension but the same was declined solely on the ground that the post of Law Assistant was not sanctioned and accordingly the writ petitioner was not entitled for payment of the pension. 4. The writ petitioner attained the age of superannuation and retired on 31.7.2018 and submitted his claim for payment of pension but the same was declined solely on the ground that the post of Law Assistant was not sanctioned and accordingly the writ petitioner was not entitled for payment of the pension. 4. It was the specific case of the writ petitioner/respondent before the learned Single Judge that he stood entitled to pensionary benefit in terms of Rule 2(1) of the U.P. Development Authorities Centralized Services Retirement Benefits Rules, 2011 and also satisfied the eligibility criteria provided therein. It was also stated that the writ petitioner continued to discharge his duties as a Law Assistant in pursuance to a substantive appointment made in accordance with law and continued to draw his salary from the State funds throughout the tenure of his appointment. The denial of pensionary benefits to the writ petitioner/respondent was thus wholly unjustified. 5. The judgement and order of the learned Single Judge is being resisted by the learned Counsel for the appellant mainly on the grounds that : (i) the writ petitioner/respondent did not hold the post under the centralized services in terms of U.P. Development Authorities Regulations, 1985 and as such was not entitled to the retiral benefits under the U.P. Development Authorities Centralized Services Retirement Benefits Rules, 2011. (ii) the post of Legal Assistant held by the writ petitioner/respondent was neither created by the State Government nor sanctioned by the State Government nor the writ petitioner/respondent was appointed by the State Government. (iii) the appointment of the writ petitioner/respondent was not a substantive appointment inasmuch as it was neither sanctioned by State Government nor the appointment was made by the State Government as is required under the U.P. Development Authorities Regulations, 1985. (iv) the services of the writ petitioner/respondent were never regularized and could not be equated to that of Sri Naresh Dutt Tyagi who was appointed on 5.6.1979 and his post was duly sanctioned by the State Government. 6. It is thus submitted that the learned Single Judge erred in law in allowing the writ petition and in issuing directions for payment of the retiral dues along with interest and as such the intra Court Appeal deserves to be allowed. 7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. 6. It is thus submitted that the learned Single Judge erred in law in allowing the writ petition and in issuing directions for payment of the retiral dues along with interest and as such the intra Court Appeal deserves to be allowed. 7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. We find that the learned Single Judge has noted the fact that the writ petitioner was appointed on 7.5.1988 pursuant to an advertisement issued by the appellant itself and faced selection. The writ petitioner was also absorbed on the post of Law Officer in terms of order dated 15.3.2017 (Annexure-10 to the writ petition). The writ petitioner/respondent has been drawing salary from the State funds throughout the tenure of his appointment which fact was not disputed by the appellant. The learned Single Judge also found that the writ petitioner qualified the eligibility criteria prescribed under the Retirement Benefits Rules, 2011 and had rendered the qualifying service of more than 20 years and as such the decision to deny the writ petitioner the retiral benefits could not be sustained. 8. Recently the Apex court in the case of the State of Gujarat and others vs. Talsibhai Dhanjibhai Patel, Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 1109 of 2022 decided on 18.2.2022 reported in 2022 Live Law (SC) 187 had the occasion to consider a similar situation and observed as under:- "It is unfortunate that the State continued to take the services of the respondent as an ad-hoc for 30 years and thereafter now to contend that as the services rendered by the respondent are ad-hoc, he is not entitled to pension/pensionary benefit. The State cannot be permitted to take the benefit of its own wrong. To take the Services continuously for 30 years and thereafter to contend that an employee who has rendered 30 years continues service shall not be eligible for pension is nothing but unreasonable. As a welfare State, the State as such ought not to have taken such a stand. In the present case, the High Court has not committed any error in directing the State to pay pensionary benefits to the respondent who has retired after rendering more than 30 years service." 9. In view of the above, we do not find any error in the judgement and order of the learned Single Judge so as to warrant an interference. 10. In view of the above, we do not find any error in the judgement and order of the learned Single Judge so as to warrant an interference. 10. Accordingly, the Intra Court Appeal stands dismissed.