JUDGMENT : 1. This intra Court appeal is filed by the State of Uttar Pradesh through its officials, questioning the judgment and order dated 19.8.2021, passed by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 3660 of 2021, directing the appellant State to include the services rendered by respondent/petitioner from 1.1.1989 to 31.12.2018 i.e. prior to his regularization, towards qualifying service, and take a decision for payment of pension and other retiral dues. Aforesaid direction came to be issued after the appellant State had filed a counter-affidavit, opposing the prayer made in the writ, to which a rejoinder was also filed. The parties in the appeal are already represented and with their consent the dispute raised is being disposed of, at the admission stage itself, without calling for any further affidavits. 2. We have heard Sri Rama Nand Pandey, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the appellant State and Sri Bharat Pratap Singh for the respondent/petitioner and have perused the materials on record. 3. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts of the case are that the respondent/petitioner was appointed on the post of Junior Engineer in the Minor Irrigation Department of State, on daily wage basis, on 1.1.1989. Having continued in such capacity, he approached Lucknow Bench of this Court with the grievance that the authorities have arbitrarily denied him benefit of minimum of pay scale; as also regularization, though he has worked for sufficiently long. The writ petition No. 1436 (SS) of 1997 was entertained and following directions were issued on 21.2.1997: ''Learned Standing Counsel accepts notice and is granted six weeks' time to file a counter-affidavit. Rejoinder-affidavit if any, may be filed within two weeks thereafter. List and connect with writ petition No. 5224 (SS) of 1994. Meanwhile, it is provided that the opposite parties shall consider the case of petitioners for regularization against the existing vacancies as they have completed more than 5 years of service as daily wagers. They are Junior Engineer, thereafter, they should be paid atleast minimum of the pay scale to which a regular Junior Engineer is entitled.'' (Emphasis supplied by us) 4. The Chief Engineer of the Minor Irrigation Department on 3.9.1997 thus issued directions for payment of salary to respondent/petitioner in the scale admissible to the Junior Engineer i.e. Rs. 1400-2300/-. They are Junior Engineer, thereafter, they should be paid atleast minimum of the pay scale to which a regular Junior Engineer is entitled.'' (Emphasis supplied by us) 4. The Chief Engineer of the Minor Irrigation Department on 3.9.1997 thus issued directions for payment of salary to respondent/petitioner in the scale admissible to the Junior Engineer i.e. Rs. 1400-2300/-. The Executive Engineer also issued a consequential order, posting the respondent/petitioner as Junior Engineer in the office of Assistant Engineer (Rig) Lalitpur. The respondent/petitioner was petitioner No. 2 in Writ Petition No. 1436 (SS) of 1997, which came to be disposed of finally vide following orders passed on 7.1.2009: ''In this case at the time of filing of writ petition an ad-interim order was passed on 21.2.1997 providing therein that the petitioner shall be paid minimum of pay scale to which a regular Junior Engineer is entitled. Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that the petitioners have put in more than 20 years of service with the respondents and burnt their youth for the department, the interest of justice would suffice, if their cases are considered for regularisation under relevant provisions of Regularisation Rules within a maximum period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this writ petition is disposed of finally.'' 5. The Chief Engineer apparently sought legal advise from the Department of Personnel, which opined that the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh (posts within the purview of Public Service Commission) Regularisation of Ad hoc Appointments (Third Amendment) Rules, 2001, notified on 20th December, 2001, relied upon by the respondent/petitioner for seeking regularization of his services are not applicable and, consequently the claim for regularization was rejected vide order dated 14.1.2011. 6. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, dated 14.1.2011, the respondent/petitioner instituted a Claim Petition No. 299 of 2011 before the U.P. Public Service Tribunal, Lucknow. The Tribunal found that the respondent/petitioner was already working prior to 30.6.1998 (the cut off date under the regularization rules) and was also continuing in service on the date of commencement of the Third Amendment Rules i.e. 20.12.2001, as such, the rejection of petitioner's claim for regularization was unsustainable. The Tribunal found that the respondent/petitioner was already working prior to 30.6.1998 (the cut off date under the regularization rules) and was also continuing in service on the date of commencement of the Third Amendment Rules i.e. 20.12.2001, as such, the rejection of petitioner's claim for regularization was unsustainable. The Tribunal, accordingly, allowed the claim petition on 16.2.2015 and directed the respondents to reconsider the matter, in accordance with the Third Amendment Rules, taking into consideration the claim of Prabhu Nath Singh, whose similar claim had already been allowed by the Department. The order passed in the case of Prabhu Nath Singh by the Chief Engineer, Minor Irrigation Department, dated 21.12.2012, is also annexed to the writ petition. 7. The direction of the Tribunal was challenged by State by filing a writ petition before the Lucknow Bench of this Court being writ petition (SB) No. 1506 of 2015. A Division Bench of this Court disposed off the writ petition filed by the State in following terms vide order dated 30th November, 2017: ''After hearing learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the record, we are of the considered view that the finding, which has been given by the Tribunal that Admittedly, the petitioners qualify for regularization in accordance with the Rules, 2001, is not correct because that leaves no room for the petitioners/respondents to exercise their discretion in considering the case of the respondents/claimants for regularization as per Rules 2001. At this stage, after arguing at some length, it is amicably settled between the parties that the present writ petitions may be disposed of with direction that the petitioners/Officer respondents may consider the case of Shashi Kant Singh, Shiv Mohan Richhariya and Raj Bahadur Pastor in accordance with Rules 2001. Accordingly, in view of the above said fact, both the writ petitions are disposed of with direction that the Competent Authority shall consider the case of Shashi Kant Singh, Shiv Mohan Richhariya and Raj Bahadur Pastor for regularization on the post of junior engineer in the Minor Irrigation Department, as per Rules 2001, after giving opportunity of hearing to them.'' 8. It appears that similar claims of other persons were also engaging the attention of the State Government which issued a Government Order, dated 7th September, 2018, for regularizing the services of employees of Minor irrigation, in accordance with the Regularization Rules of 2001. It appears that similar claims of other persons were also engaging the attention of the State Government which issued a Government Order, dated 7th September, 2018, for regularizing the services of employees of Minor irrigation, in accordance with the Regularization Rules of 2001. It is pursuant to this Government order and the direction issued by Lucknow Bench of this Court in the writ filed by the State that petitioner's claim for regularization came to be considered by the Chief Engineer vide his order dated 31.12.2018. The claim of respondent/petitioner on merits was examined and relying upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Karnataka and others v. C. Lalitha, Appeal (Civil) No. 919 of 2002, dated 31.1.2006, the services of respondent/petitioner came to be regularized vide following orders: ^^lfefr ds le{k ÁLrqr fd;s x;s rF;ksa ,oa vfHkys[kksa ds vk/kkj ij Jh jkt cgknqj iLrkSj] voj vfHk;Urk 30 twu 1998 ds iwoZ ls dk;Zjr gS rFkk fu;qfDr ds le; 'kSf{kd ,oa rduhdh ;ksX;rk j[krs gSaA budh pfj= Áfof"V;ksa ,oa vU; lsok vfHkys[kksa ds ijh{k.kksaijkUr mRrj Áns'k ¼yksd lsok vk;ksx ds {ks=kaxZr inksa ij½ rnFkZ fu;qfDr;ksa dk fofu;ferhdj.k fu;ekoyh] 1979 ;Fkk la'kksf/kr fu;ekoyh] 2001 esa fufgr Ákfo/kkuksa] 'kklukns'kksa ,oa fofHkUu U;k;ky;ksa ds vkns'kksa ds vkyksd esa lfefr dh laLrqfr fnukad 28-12-2018 ds vk/kkj ij Jh jkt cgknqj iLrkSj dks voj vfHk;Urk osru eSfVªDl ysoy&6 osrueku :i;s 25]400&1]12]400 esa rRdky ÁHkko ls fofu;fer fd;k tkrk gSA Jh iLrkSj dks 'kklu }kjk le;≤ ij ÁnRr vU; lHkh HkRrs fu;ekuqlkj ns; gksaxsA** 9. The respondent/petitioner has also attained the age of superannuation on 30.9.2020. Claim for payment of retiral benefits was thereafter raised by the respondent/petitioner before the authorities, which was forwarded by the Executive Engineer to the Chief Engineer on 5.10.2020. Attention of the authorities was also invited to the fact that provident fund contribution was being deducted from the salary of respondent/petitioner w.e.f. June, 1999 under the General Provident Fund (Uttar Pradesh) Rules, 1985, and the service book in that regard was annexed. The authorities, however, did not sanction pension to the respondent/petitioner on the premise that having been regularized in the employment of State w.e.f. 31.12.2018, the respondent/petitioner had not completed qualifying service of 10 years so as to be entitled to receive pension under the U.P. Retirement Benefit Rules, 1961. The authorities, however, did not sanction pension to the respondent/petitioner on the premise that having been regularized in the employment of State w.e.f. 31.12.2018, the respondent/petitioner had not completed qualifying service of 10 years so as to be entitled to receive pension under the U.P. Retirement Benefit Rules, 1961. It is at this stage that the respondent/petitioner approached this Court by filing writ petition No. 3660 of 2021 with the prayer to command the respondent authorities to amend his regularization order, dated 31.12.2018, and to give effect to it from 3.2.1993 (date of posting as Junior Engineer) allegedly against a vacant post or from 20th December, 2001 i.e. the date when the regularization rules were amended vide third amendment rules and to grant all consequential service and pensionary benefits. 10. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State contending that respondent/petitioner has rightly been regularized from 31.12.2018. In paragraph 8 of the counter-affidavit filed in the writ petition, it is stated that since State Government had not promulgated any regularization rules in respect of daily wage/work charged employees on the posts falling within the purview of Public Service Commission, therefore, respondent/petitioner was not appointed on the regular post of Junior Engineer. So far as the orders of regularization passed in favour of Prabhu Nath Singh and Shailendra Pratap Singh are concerned, it has been explained in para 10 that those orders were passed in compliance of the directions of the writ Court. In paragraph 13 of the counter-affidavit it has been stated that in compliance of the interim directions issued by the Lucknow Bench of this Court in writ petition No. 1436 (ss) of 1997, the Chief Engineer had approved the payment of minimum of scale admissible to a Junior Engineer to the respondent/petitioner. It has further been stated that G.P.F. was deducted from the Account of the respondent/petitioner by the office of Accountant General on misconceived facts, inasmuch as, such GPF was not liable to be deducted from the employees of State working on daily wage basis, rather it could be deducted from the employees of State Government working on regular basis. It has further been averred that after coming to know of such fact an inquiry has been initiated in the matter. It has further been averred that after coming to know of such fact an inquiry has been initiated in the matter. In para 14, the respondents have referred to and relied upon the provisions of Uttar Pradesh Qualifying Service for Pension and Validation Ordinance, 2020, wherein Clause 2 defines the 'qualifying service' and by virtue of Clause 3 the provisions of U.P. Retirement Benefit Rules, 1961', are to be treated as amended w.e.f. 1st April, 1961. Government Order of 1st March, 2021 is also relied upon, which directs the Ordinance to be given effect to in all cases. It is in the above context that the respondents stated before the learned Single Judge that benefit of regularization as per entitlement of respondent/petitioner was already given and that no further benefit was liable to be extended to him. 11. A rejoinder-affidavit came to be filed by the respondent/petitioner disputing the assertions made in the counter-affidavit and reiterating the averments made in the writ petition. 12. It is in the above backdrop that the writ petition was heard by learned Single Judge who allowed it vide his order under challenge dated 19.8.2021. Learned Single Judge took note of the fact that respondent/petitioner was initially appointed on adhoc basis on 1.1.1989 and worked on daily wage till 3.2.1993 and thereafter in terms of the order passed by this Court on 21.2.1997 against a sanctioned post in the regular pay scale admissible to a Junior Engineer. The grievance of the respondent/petitioner that he has been denied pensionary benefits on account of non completion of 10 years qualifying service has also been noticed. Learned Single Judge, thereafter referred to the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Prem Singh vs. State of U.P. and Others, (2019) 10 SCC 516 ; as also the judgment of this Court in State of U.P. and Others vs. Bhanu Pratap Sharma, Special Appeal No. 97 of 2021 to observe that period of work prior to regularization would have to be counted towards qualifying service. The learned Single Judge clearly observed that in view of the above elucidation of law in the above judgment the services rendered from 1.1.1989 by respondent/petitioner was liable to be counted towards qualifying service. The learned Single Judge clearly observed that in view of the above elucidation of law in the above judgment the services rendered from 1.1.1989 by respondent/petitioner was liable to be counted towards qualifying service. The direction of learned Single Judge reads as under: ''Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed with direction that the respondents shall take decision with regard to the payment of pension and other retiral dues of the petitioner calculating the services rendered by the petitioner from 1.1.1989 up to 31.12.2018 also while computing the qualifying service. The action of payment of consequential benefits shall be taken as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four months from the date of production of a copy of this order before the concerned respondent.'' 13. Aggrieved by the above directions, the State Government has filed the present appeal. Sri Ramanand Pandey, learned State Counsel contends that the learned Single Judge has erred in allowing the writ petition on following grounds: (i) That learned Single Judge has not examined the import of U.P. Ordinance No. 19 of 2020, followed by U.P. Act No. 1 of 2021, and the direction issued in the judgment is in teeth of its provisions. (ii) Judgments of the Supreme Court in the case of Prem Singh (supra) and this Court in Bhanu Pratap Sharma (supra) are not applicable since the judgment of Supreme Court was in the context of work charge employee, which is not the case here, and the judgment in Bhanu Pratap Sharma is also distinguishable on facts. (iii) Import of Regulation 352 of Civil Service Regulation has not been examined, nor the stand in the counter that appointment of respondent/petitioner was not in accordance with the law has been dealt with. (iv) Appointment of respondent/petitioner was not against a substantive regular post and was otherwise not made by the competent authority and, therefore, the period of work from 1989 cannot be counted in view of the U.P. Act No. 1 of 2021. (v) That the order of regularization itself was not challenged and, therefore, a writ of mandamus could not be issued to modify it and make it operational from 1.1.1989. 14. (v) That the order of regularization itself was not challenged and, therefore, a writ of mandamus could not be issued to modify it and make it operational from 1.1.1989. 14. The aforesaid submission is countered by Sri Bharat Pratap Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/petitioner on the ground that repeated directions of this Court to consider the claim of respondent/petitioner for regularization was not followed compelling him to approach this Court and, therefore, the direction of the learned Single Judge for inclusion of past services towards qualifying service contains no error. 15. Sri Singh further submits that claim of respondent/petitioner that regularization ought to have been considered in terms of the direction issued by the writ Court on 21.2.1997, or in any event such benefit had to be extended in view of the provisions of Uttar Pradesh (posts within the purview of Public Service Commission) Regularisation of Ad hoc Appointments Rules, 1979 as amended vide Third Amendment Rules of 2001, notified on 20th December, 2001, particularly as conditions therein were duly met by the respondent/petitioner has not been examined by the State. 16. Sri Singh submits that the respondents have already found the case of respondent/petitioner for regularization to be covered under the amended rules of 2001 but making such regularization prospective vide order dated 31st December, 2018, amounts to putting premium on the inaction of the authorities in implementing the provisions of the amended rules of 2001 as also in complying with the directions of this Court. It is also urged that the respondent/petitioner has been treated unfairly by the authorities and having worked for more than 30 years his claim for pensionary benefits has been arbitrarily denied contrary to law. 17. It is in the above context and the respective arguments of the parties that this appeal requires adjudication by us. 18. It is admitted that initial engagement of respondent/petitioner in the department of Minor Irrigation of State of U.P. was on daily wage basis w.e.f. 1.1.1989. He continued to work in such capacity without any complaint. A direction came to be issued by Lucknow Bench of this Court on 21.2.1997 for consideration of his claim for regularization against the existing vacancies and also pay him minimum of pay scale admissible to a regular Junior Engineer. He continued to work in such capacity without any complaint. A direction came to be issued by Lucknow Bench of this Court on 21.2.1997 for consideration of his claim for regularization against the existing vacancies and also pay him minimum of pay scale admissible to a regular Junior Engineer. This interim direction of the writ Court was complied only in part, inasmuch as, scale of pay admissible to a Junior Engineer alone was sanctioned by the Chief Engineer to respondent/petitioner on 3.9.1997, but his claim for regularization was not considered. vide subsequent order of 18th September, 1997, the department posted the respondent petitioner as Junior Engineer in the office of Assistant Engineer (Rig). 19. The post of Junior Engineer in the department was to be substantively filled under the rules by way of direct recruitment to be made by the U.P. Public Service Commission. The initial engagement of respondent/petitioner is not shown or even claimed to be through the Commission, but his engagement since 1.1.1989 and continuous working ever since then till he attained the age of superannuation remains admitted on record. It is also undisputed that repeated orders were passed by this Court, from time to time, for consideration of his claim for regularization, but it is only vide order dated 3.12.2018 that his services have been regularized by having recourse to the third amendment in the regularization rules, notified on 20th December, 2001. It is soon thereafter that the respondent/petitioner has superannuated on 30.9.2020. The respondents have denied pensionary benefits to the respondent/petitioner only on the ground that he has not completed qualifying service of 10 years under the U.P. Retirement Benefit Rules, 1961. 20. The respondent/petitioner in the writ petition sought a writ of mandamus to modify the order of regularization, dated 30.12.2018, and made it effective either from 3.2.1993 since when he was given salary in the scale of pay admissible to Junior Engineer or from 20.12.2001, when rules for regularization were notified in respect of the post within the purview of Public Service Commission. Learned Single Judge, however, has directed the respondents to calculate the services rendered by the respondent/petitioner from 1.1.1989 to 31.12.2018 as qualifying service relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Prem Singh (supra) and judgment of this Court in Bhanu Pratap Sharma (supra). 21. Learned Single Judge, however, has directed the respondents to calculate the services rendered by the respondent/petitioner from 1.1.1989 to 31.12.2018 as qualifying service relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Prem Singh (supra) and judgment of this Court in Bhanu Pratap Sharma (supra). 21. The learned Single Judge in his judgment under challenge has not specifically considered the prayer of respondent/petitioner for modifying the regularization order issued in his favour on 30.12.2018 and to make it effective from the date when the regularization rules were framed in respect of the respondent/petitioner. Learned Single Judge has apparently proceeded on the premise that in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Prem Singh; as also the judgment of this Court in Bhanu Pratap Sharma (supra), the law is settled that adhoc services rendered prior to regularization would have to be necessarily computed towards qualifying service. In order to appreciate such contention, we have examined the judgment of the Supreme Court in Prem Singh (supra) as also the law laid down by this Court in the case of Bhanu Pratap Sharma so as to consider the appellant's contention that the learned Single Judge erred in taking such view with reference to the provisions of the applicable statute. 22. The Supreme Court in the case of Prem Singh (supra) was examining the question of inclusion of services rendered by a work charge employee towards qualifying service under Rule 3(8) of the U.P. Retirement Benefit Rules, 1961, in light of the previous judgment of the Court in Habib Khan vs. State of Uttarakhand and Others, (2019) 10 SCC 542 . The provisions that fell for consideration before the Supreme Court are extracted in paragraphs 8 and 9 of the judgment in Prem Singh (supra), which are reproduced hereinafter: ''8. We first consider the provisions contained in the Uttar Pradesh Retirement Benefits Rules 1961 (for short, ''the 1961 Rules''). Rule 3(8) of Rules of 1961 which contains the provisions in respect of qualifying service is extracted hereunder: ''Rule 3. In these rules, unless is anything repugnant in the subject or context- (1)........ (2)........ (8) ''Qualifying service'' means service which qualifies for pension in accordance with the provisions of Article 368 of the Civil Service Regulations. Rule 3(8) of Rules of 1961 which contains the provisions in respect of qualifying service is extracted hereunder: ''Rule 3. In these rules, unless is anything repugnant in the subject or context- (1)........ (2)........ (8) ''Qualifying service'' means service which qualifies for pension in accordance with the provisions of Article 368 of the Civil Service Regulations. 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.'' (Emphasis supplied) 9. Regulations 361, 368 and 370 of Uttar Pradesh Civil Services Regulations are also relevant. They are extracted hereunder: ''361. The service of an officer does not qualify for pension unless it conforms to the following three conditions: First - The service must be under Government. Second - The employment must be substantive and permanent. These three conditions are fully explained in the following Section. 368. Service does not qualify unless the officer holds a substantive office on a permanent establishment. 370. Continuous temporary or officiating service under the Government of Uttar Pradesh followed without interruption 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; (iii) periods of service in a post paid from contingencies.'' 23. The Supreme Court also took note of paragraphs 667, 668 and 669 of the Financial Handbook, Volume (VI) relating to engagement of employees in the work charge establishment. The Court noticed the submission of the State in opposition to the plea for inclusion of services rendered as work charge employee, towards the qualifying service, in paragraphs 29 and proceeded to observe as under in paragraphs 30 to 37: ''30. We are not impressed by the aforesaid submissions. The Court noticed the submission of the State in opposition to the plea for inclusion of services rendered as work charge employee, towards the qualifying service, in paragraphs 29 and proceeded to observe as under in paragraphs 30 to 37: ''30. We are not impressed by the aforesaid submissions. The appointment of the work-charged employee in question had been made on monthly salary and they were required to cross the efficiency bar also. How their services are qualitatively different from regular employees? No material indicating qualitative difference has been pointed out except making bald statement. The appointment was not made for a particular project which is the basic concept of the work charged employees. Rather, the very concept of work-charged employment has been misused by offering the employment on exploitative terms for the work which is regular and perennial in nature. The work-charged employees had been subjected to transfer from one place to another like regular employees as apparent from documents placed on record. In Narain Dutt Sharma and Others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, C.A. No.........2019 and SLP (C) No. 5775 of 2018 the appellants were allowed to cross efficiency bar, after ''8' years of continuous service, even during the period of work-charged services. Narain Dutt Sharma, the appellant, was appointed as a work-charged employee as Gej Mapak w.e.f 15.9.1978. Payment used to be made monthly but the appointment was made in the pay scale of Rs. 200-320. Initially, he was appointed in the year 1978 on a fixed monthly salary of Rs. 205 per month. They were allowed to cross efficiency bar also as the benefit of pay scale was granted to them during the period they served as work-charged employees they served for three to four decades and later on services have been regularized time to time by different orders. However, the services of some of the appellants in few petitions/appeals have not been regularized even though they had served for several decades and ultimately reached the age of superannuation. 31. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it was unfair on the part of the State Government and its officials to take work from the employees on the work-charged basis. They ought to have resorted to an appointment on regular basis. The taking of work on the work-charged basis for long amounts to adopting the exploitative device. Later on, though their services have been regularized. They ought to have resorted to an appointment on regular basis. The taking of work on the work-charged basis for long amounts to adopting the exploitative device. Later on, though their services have been regularized. However, the period spent by them in the work-charged establishment has not been counted towards the qualifying service. Thus, they have not only been deprived of their due emoluments during the period they served on less salary in work charged establishment but have also been deprived of counting of the period for pensionary benefits as if no services had been rendered by them. The State has been benefitted by the services rendered by them in the heydays of their life on less salary in work-charged establishment. 32. In view of the note appended to Rule 3(8) of the 1961 Rules, there is a provision to count service spent on work charged, contingencies or non pensionable service, in case, a person has rendered such service in a given between period of two temporary appointments in the pensionable establishment or has rendered such service in the interregnum two periods of temporary and permanent employment. The work-charged service can be counted as qualifying service for pension in the aforesaid exigencies. 33. The question arises whether the imposition of rider that such service to be counted has to be rendered in-between two spells of temporary or temporary and permanent service is legal and proper. We find that once regularization had been made on vacant posts, though the employee had not served prior to that on temporary basis, considering the nature of appointment, though it was not a regular appointment it was made on monthly salary and thereafter in the pay scale of work-charged establishment the efficiency bar was permitted to be crossed. It would be highly discriminatory and irrational because of the rider contained in Note to Rule 3(8) of 1961 Rules, not to count such service particularly, when it can be counted, in case such service is sandwiched between two temporary or in-between temporary and permanent services. There is no rhyme or reason not to count the service of work-charged period in case it has been rendered before regularisation. In our opinion, an impermissible classification has been made under Rule 3(8). It would be highly unjust, impermissible and irrational to deprive such employees benefit of the qualifying service. There is no rhyme or reason not to count the service of work-charged period in case it has been rendered before regularisation. In our opinion, an impermissible classification has been made under Rule 3(8). It would be highly unjust, impermissible and irrational to deprive such employees benefit of the qualifying service. Service of work-charged period remains the same for all the employees, once it is to be counted for one class, it has to be counted for all to prevent discrimination. The classification cannot be done on the irrational basis and when respondents are themselves counting period spent in such service, it would be highly discriminatory not to count the service on the basis of flimsy classification. The rider put on that work-charged service should have preceded by temporary capacity is discriminatory and irrational and creates an impermissible classification. 34. As it would be unjust, illegal and impermissible to make aforesaid classification to make the Rule 3(8) valid and non discriminatory, we have to read down the provisions of Rule 3(8) and hold that services rendered even prior to regularisation in the capacity of work-charged employees, contingency paid fund employees or non-pensionable establishment shall also be counted towards the qualifying service even if such service is not preceded by temporary or regular appointment in a pensionable establishment. 35. In view of the note appended to Rule 3(8), which we have read down, the provision contained in Regulation 370 of the Civil Services Regulations has to be struck down as also the instructions contained in Para 669 of the Financial Handbook. 36. There are some of the employees who have not been regularized in spite of having rendered the services for 30-40 or more years whereas they have been superannuated. As they have worked in the work-charged establishment, not against any particular project, their services ought to have been regularized under the Government instructions and even as per the decision of this Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka and others v. Uma Devi, 2006 (4) SCC 1 . This Court in the said decision has laid down that in case services have been rendered for more than ten years without the cover of the Court's order, as one time measure, the services be regularized of such employees. In the facts of the case, those employees who have worked for ten years or more should have been regularized. This Court in the said decision has laid down that in case services have been rendered for more than ten years without the cover of the Court's order, as one time measure, the services be regularized of such employees. In the facts of the case, those employees who have worked for ten years or more should have been regularized. It would not be proper to regulate them for consideration of regularisation as others have been regularised, we direct that their services be treated as a regular one. However, it is made clear that they shall not be entitled to claiming any dues of difference in wages had they been continued in service regularly before attaining the age of superannuation. They shall be entitled to receive the pension as if they have retired from the regular establishment and the services rendered by them right from the day they entered the work-charged establishment shall be counted as qualifying service for purpose of pension. 37. In view of reading down Rule 3(8) of the U.P. Retirement Benefits Rules, 1961, we hold that services rendered in the work-charged establishment shall be treated as qualifying service under the aforesaid rule for grant of pension. The arrears of pension shall be confined to three years only before the date of the order. Let the admissible benefits be paid accordingly within three months. Resultantly, the appeals filed by the employees are allowed and filed by the State are dismissed.'' 24. After the aforesaid judgment was delivered by the Supreme Court, the State has promulgated U.P. Ordinance No. 19 of 2020 specifying the 'qualifying service' to mean the services rendered by an officer appointed on a temporary or permanent post, in accordance with the provisions of service rules prescribed by the Government for the post. Clause 3 of the Ordinance also amended sub-rule (8) of Rule 3 of the U.P. Retirement Benefit Rules, 1961 retrospectively w.e.f. 1st April, 1961. Clauses 2 and 3 of the Ordinance are reproduced hereinafter: ''2. Notwithstanding anything contained in any rule, regulation or Government order for the purposes of entitlement of pension to an officer, ''Qualifying Service'' means the services rendered by an officer appointed on a temporary or permanent post in accordance with the provisions of the service rules prescribed by the Government for the post. 3. Notwithstanding anything contained in any rule, regulation or Government order for the purposes of entitlement of pension to an officer, ''Qualifying Service'' means the services rendered by an officer appointed on a temporary or permanent post in accordance with the provisions of the service rules prescribed by the Government for the post. 3. Notwithstanding any judgment, decree or order of any Court, anything done or purporting to have been done and may action taken or purporting to have been taken under or in relation to sub-rule (8) of rule 3 of the Uttar Pradesh Retirement Benefit Rules, 1961 before the commencement of this Ordinance, shall be deemed to be and always to have been done or taken under the provisions of this Ordinance and to be and always to have been valid as if the provisions of this Ordinance were in force at all material times with effect from April 1, 1961.'' 25. Above ordinance is followed with the promulgation of the Uttar Pradesh Qualifying Service For Pension And Validation Act, 2021 (U.P. Act No. 1 of 2021). The statement of objects and reasons of U.P. Act No. 1 of 2021 is reproduced hereinafter: ''STATEMENT OF OBJECTS AND REASONS Pension and gratuity admissible to a retired Government servant are determined in relation to the length of qualifying service of the Government servant. Although the term ''Qualifying Service'' is described in the Uttar Pradesh Civil Service Regulation and the Uttar Pradesh Retirement Benefit Rules, 1961, however the definition of the said term is open to subjective interpretation which leads to administrative difficulties. I has, therefore, been decided to make a law defining the term ''Qualifying Service'' and to validate such definition with effect from April 1, 1961 which is the date of commencement of the Uttar Pradesh Retirement Benefit Rules, 1961. Since the State Legislature was not in session and immediate legislative action was necessary to implement the aforesaid decision, the Uttar Pradesh Qualifying Service for Pension and Validation Ordinance, 2020 (U.P. Ordinance No. 19 of 2020) was promulgated by the Governor on October 21, 2020. This Bill is introduced to replace the aforesaid Ordinance. By order, ATUL SRIVASTAVA, Pramukh Sachiv.'' 26. This Bill is introduced to replace the aforesaid Ordinance. By order, ATUL SRIVASTAVA, Pramukh Sachiv.'' 26. On account of the above amendment in the U.P. Retirement Benefit Rules, 1961, the definition of 'qualifying service' hitherto contained in Rule 3(8) of 1961 Rules, stands retrospectively modified in terms of the Sections 2 and 3 of the U.P. Act No. 1 of 2021. This amendment has been made applicable w.e.f. 1st April, 1961, notwithstanding any judgment, decree or order of any Court. 27. We may note that the Ordinance of 2020 substituted by U.P. Act No. 1 of 2021 was not under challenge before the learned Single Judge. Once the statute has been amended retrospectively, the writ Court would not be justified in ignoring the provisions of the statute, particularly when they are not under challenge and have otherwise not been read down by having recourse to any of the principles of interpretation of statute. The amended provision requires the qualifying service for the purposes of entitlement of pension, notwithstanding any judgment, decree or order of any Court, to be rendered by an officer appointed on temporary or permanent post in accordance with the provisions of the service rules prescribed by the Government for the post. This aspect has completely been ignored by the learned Single Judge although the provisions of the Ordinance were specifically brought on record by way of the counter-affidavit filed in the writ petition. There is otherwise no pleading in the writ that the initial appointment of respondent petitioner on 1.1.1989 was in accordance with the service rules prescribed for the post. It is otherwise apparent that appointment to the post of Junior Engineer could be made only through the Public Service Commission which admittedly was not the mode of appointment offered to the respondent/petitioner. 28. So far as the judgment of the Division Bench in the case of Bhanu Pratap Sharma (supra) is concerned, we may note that the judgment of the Court was on the facts of the case, inasmuch as, the petitioner therein was regularized from work charge basis to regular establishment and it was not the case of the State that his appointment was not in accordance with the provisions of service rules. The relevant observation of this Court in case of Bhanu Pratap Sharma (supra) would be worth noticing at this stage and are reproduced: ''It is informed that this Ordinance has been enacted by U.P. Act No. 1 of 2021 on 5.3.2021 as the Uttar Pradesh Qualifying Service for Pension and Validation Act, 2021. It is clear from the perusal of Section 2 of the Act of 2021 that it would have effect notwithstanding anything contained in U.P. Retirement Benefit Rules, 1961 or Regulation 361 and 370 of the Civil Service Regulation. Careful reading thereof, however, revels that ''Qualifying Service'' has been defined to mean the services rendered by an officer appointed on a temporary or permanent post in accordance with the provisions of the service rules prescribed by the Government for the post. In the counter-affidavit filed by present appellant in the writ petition it was categorically admitted by the appellant that the petitioner was appointed in the office of Executive Engineer, Nalkoop Nirman Khand I, Bareilly on the post of Rig Assistant on work charge basis on 25.4.1979. Subsequently, the petitioner was regularized from work charge basis to regular establishment on the post of helper on 18.3.2006. Thus admittedly, the petitioner was appointed on a post in work charge establishment. The record reveals that the initial appointment of the petitioner was as helper. Thus the post which is referred to in the counter-affidavit is that of Helper on which he was regularized. The post of Helper thus permanently existed. Further more, it is not the case of the appellant that the respondent was not appointed in accordance with the provisions of Service Rules. Thus having been initially appointed on the post of Helper, the appellant were not justified in denying the service benefit. The impugned order when tested on the anvil of above analysis cannot be faulted with. In view whereof no indulgence is caused.'' (Emphasis supplied by us) 29. In the facts of the present case, we find that neither engagement of respondent/petitioner was in a work charge establishment, nor is it admitted anywhere that engagement/appointment of respondent/petitioner was in accordance with the service rules. The specific case of the respondent in para 11 of the counter-affidavit that appointment of respondent/petitioner was not made by the competent authority. In the facts of the present case, we find that neither engagement of respondent/petitioner was in a work charge establishment, nor is it admitted anywhere that engagement/appointment of respondent/petitioner was in accordance with the service rules. The specific case of the respondent in para 11 of the counter-affidavit that appointment of respondent/petitioner was not made by the competent authority. There is no discussion in the judgment of the learned Single Judge about the appointment of respondent/petitioner to be in accordance with the service rules prescribed for the post. We, therefore, find force in the contention of Mr. Pandey that learned Single Judge fell in error in allowing the writ petition relying upon the judgment of Supreme Court in Prem Singh (supra) and Bhanu Pratap Sharma (supra), particularly after retrospective amendment of the provisions of the U.P. Retirement Benefit Rules, 1961 vide U.P. Act No. 1 of 2021. 30. Law is settled that direction by a writ Court can only be in accordance with law and not contrary to it. In Manish Goel vs. Rohini Goel, (2010) 4 SCC 393 , the Supreme Court observed as under: ''14. Generally, no Court has competence to issue a direction contrary to law nor can the Court direct an authority to act in contravention of the statutory provisions. The Courts are meant to enforce the rule of law and not to pass the orders or directions which are contrary to what has been injected by law. [Vide State of Punjab vs. Renuka Singla, (1994) 1 SCC 175 , State of U.P. vs. Harish Chandra, (1996) 9 SCC 309 : 1996 SCC (L&S) 1240 : AIR 1996 SC 2173 , Union of India vs. Kirloskar Pneumatic Co. Ltd. (1996) 4 SCC 453 : AIR 1996 SC 3285 , University of Allahabad vs. Dr. Anand Prakash Mishra, (1997) 10 SCC 264 : 1997 SCC (L&S) 1265 and Karnataka SRTC vs. Ashrafulla Khan, (2002) 2 SCC 560 : AIR 2002 SC 629 ].'' 31. Ltd. (1996) 4 SCC 453 : AIR 1996 SC 3285 , University of Allahabad vs. Dr. Anand Prakash Mishra, (1997) 10 SCC 264 : 1997 SCC (L&S) 1265 and Karnataka SRTC vs. Ashrafulla Khan, (2002) 2 SCC 560 : AIR 2002 SC 629 ].'' 31. Sri Bharat Pratap Singh although has attempted to draw analogy on the basis of aforesaid two judgments in the matter of engagement of respondent/petitioner, but has not been able to invite our attention to any averment in the writ petition about engagement of respondent/petitioner on work charge basis; or admission of fact by the State that the engagement of respondent/petitioner was in accordance with the applicable service rules relating to recruitment on post in question. The judgment of learned Single Judge, therefore, cannot be sustained for the aforesaid reasons. 32. Learned counsel for the respondent/petitioner next contended that the concerned employee has already retired and his claim raised in the writ petition for the grant of benefit of regularization in accordance with the applicable statute be considered by us, on merits, particularly, as pleadings have already been exchanged before the learned Single Judge. 33. In the facts of the case, we have thus proceeded to examine the claim of respondent/petitioner, on merits, as remitting the matter back to the learned Single Judge may occasion failure of justice for the respondent/petitioner, particularly as he has already attained the age of superannuation. 34. Law with regard to regularization is well-settled. The purpose of regularization as also the exigency in which such benefit can be granted has been extensively considered by the Supreme Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others vs. Uma Devi, 2006 (4) SCC 1 . It has been held that such benefit can be granted only in accordance with the rules framed for the purpose. 35. The appointment on the post of Junior Engineer under the recruitment rules is to be made through the U.P. Public Service Commission. The initial engagement of the respondent/petitioner was not through the Commission and the manner of initial recruitment of respondent/petitioner has neither been specifically pleaded in the writ nor has been adverted to by the respondents. It has, however, been stated in para 11 of the counter-affidavit that initial engagement of respondent/petitioner was not in accordance with the service rules. This plea has not been specifically denied in the counter-affidavit. It has, however, been stated in para 11 of the counter-affidavit that initial engagement of respondent/petitioner was not in accordance with the service rules. This plea has not been specifically denied in the counter-affidavit. The initial engagement of respondent/petitioner w.e.f. 1.1.1989 was on daily wage basis and he was sanctioned regular scale of pay by the competent authority on 3.9.1997, in compliance of the orders passed in writ petition No. 1436 (SS) of 1997 and he was posted as Junior Engineer against the vacant post vide order dated 18.9.1997. His continuance thereafter till attaining the age of superannuation remains undisputed. 36. In the first writ petition filed by the respondent/petitioner a direction was issued by the Lucknow Bench of this Court on 21.2.1997 for regularizing the services of respondent/petitioner against the existing vacancies as he had completed more than five years of daily wages. No rule for regularization, however, is shown where under the case of respondent for regularization could be shown to be covered. The respondent/petitioner has himself relied upon the provisions of the Third Amendment Rules of 2001, which provided that any person directly appointed on adhoc basis on or before 30.6.1998, who is continuing on date of enforcement of third amendment rules i.e. 20.12.2001 on posts falling within the purview of Public Service Commission and possesses requisite qualification prescribed for regular appointment at the time of initial adhoc appointment and has completed three years continuous 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 service rules. 37. From a perusal of the order of regularization dated 31.12.2018, passed by the competent authority, it remains undisputed that the respondent/petitioner was entitled to be regularized in accordance with the provisions of the third amendment rules notified on 20.12.2001. It has to be seen in the facts of the case, as to whether the petitioner is entitled to be regularized from any date prior to 31.12.2018 for which specific prayer is made in the writ petition? 38. It has to be seen in the facts of the case, as to whether the petitioner is entitled to be regularized from any date prior to 31.12.2018 for which specific prayer is made in the writ petition? 38. We would like to consider the plea of Sri Pandey, at this stage, that such relief cannot be granted as there is no specific prayer in the writ petition for quashing the order of regularization dated 31.12.2018 in so far as the benefit of regularization is granted only from the date of order. 39. Prayer of the respondent/petitioner in the writ is to issue a writ of mandamus amending the regularization order, dated 31.12.2018 and make it operative either from 3.2.1993 (from when regular salary has been given) or from 20.12.2001 i.e. the date on which third amendment rules were notified and for grant of all consequential service and pensionary benefits. The prayer in the writ petition clearly is to amend the regularization order and make it operative from a previous date. The mere fact that a writ of certiorari has not been prayed for would not be material, in our view, as in the facts of the case the prayer is sufficiently specific for amending the regularization order and to make it operative from the date when rules for regularization came into existence i.e. 20.12.2001. The mere fact that a writ of certiorari to quash the order to the extent regularization is allowed from the date of order is not prayed would not be fatal to the cause of the respondent/petitioner in the facts of the present case. It is ultimately for the Court to decide as to which writ is to be issued in the facts of a case. What remains of importance is the relief in the prayer clause of writ and not the specification of writ itself, to be issued by the Court, which lies exclusively in the jurisdiction of Court, to be considered in the facts of a particular case. We are, therefore, of the view that claim of respondent/petitioner for amending the regularization order and make it effective from the date of enforcement of rules cannot be overlooked only because a writ in the nature of certiorari is not specifically claimed. The objection of Sri Pandey, in this regard, is thus repelled. 40. We are, therefore, of the view that claim of respondent/petitioner for amending the regularization order and make it effective from the date of enforcement of rules cannot be overlooked only because a writ in the nature of certiorari is not specifically claimed. The objection of Sri Pandey, in this regard, is thus repelled. 40. Successive directions have otherwise been issued by the writ Court for considering the claim of respondent/petitioner for regularization. We have already referred to the orders in that regard. Claim for regularization of the services of respondent/petitioner thus needs examination, in accordance with law. 41. Rules for regularization were framed in respect of adhoc appointments on the posts falling with the purview of Public Service Commission in 1979. These rules were amended from time to time and the respondent petitioner has relied upon the third amendment rules notified on 20.12.2001. The cut off date was amended and substituted by these rules. Amended rule 2 notified on 20.12.2001 provided that any person directly appointed on adhoc basis on or before 30.6.1998 who possessed requisite qualification at the time of appointment and had completed three years service and was working on 20.12.2001 would be entitled to be considered for regular appointment against permanent or temporary vacancy on the basis of his record and suitability before any regular appointment is made in such vacancy in accordance with the relevant service rules. 42. The fact that claim of respondent/petitioner for regularization under the notification dated 20.12.2001 was covered is neither in doubt nor is disputed in view of the order dated 31.12.2018 since his initial engagement on adhoc basis was from a date prior to 30.6.1998; he was working on 20.12.2001; he possessed requisite qualification for regular appointment at the time of initial adhoc appointment and had completed three years continuous service. 43. The notification dated 20.12.2001 was expected to be given effect to with immediate effect and the consideration of claim for regularization of respondent/petitioner ought not to have been deferred for so long particularly in view of the express provision contained in the rule itself. Rule 2(iii) of the amended rules notified on 20.12.2001 also indicates the specific intent by the rule framing authority for such consideration to be made before any regular appointment is made in accordance with the service rules. The language employed in rule 2(iii) is relevant and is reproduced hereinafter: ''2(iii). Rule 2(iii) of the amended rules notified on 20.12.2001 also indicates the specific intent by the rule framing authority for such consideration to be made before any regular appointment is made in accordance with the service rules. The language employed in rule 2(iii) is relevant and is reproduced hereinafter: ''2(iii). Any person who - has completed or, as the case may be, after he has completed three years continuous 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 service rules or orders.'' 44. The fact that the above rule requires consideration for regularization against permanent or temporary vacancy, before any regular appointment is made in accordance with relevant service rule is of importance and cannot be ignored. The rule making authority was conscious that non consideration of claim for regularization notwithstanding the existence of rule for such purpose may adversely affect the adhoc employee, in the matter of determination of seniority etc. and, therefore, made a specific provision for such regularization under the rules to be considered prior to any regular appointment made in such vacancy in accordance with the relevant service rules. Denial of timely consideration in accordance with the rules for regularization may otherwise deny service and retiral benefits to adhoc employees only because of administrative lethargy on part of the department concerned in processing such claim. 45. No valid reasons have otherwise been disclosed for non consideration of claim of respondent/petitioner for regularization after 20.12.2001, particularly when the order dated 21.2.1997 already existed of this Court for regularizing his services. The only plea taken in the counter-affidavit to justify belated consideration for regularization is that the State Government directed such claim to be considered only vide order 7.9.2018. This plea of the appellant to explain the delay in consideration of claim for regularization is noticed only to be rejected. 46. The regularization rules notified on 20.12.2001 were applicable in respect of all adhoc appointments made prior to 30.6.1998 on posts falling within the purview of the Public Service Commission which included the department of minor irrigation as well and there existed no specific need of any further Administrative/Government order to be issued for the rules of regularization to be given effect to. The post of Junior Engineer in the Department of Minor Irrigation was clearly a post covered by the notification dated 20.12.2001 and issuance of the direction contained in the Government order dated 7.9.2018 was not essential and at best reminded the authorities to act as per the notification dated 20.12.2001. Services of various other persons such as Prabhu Nath Singh, Shailendra Pratap Singh, etc. were otherwise regularized much prior to 7.9.2018. The argument that this was done in compliance of the Court's order does not inspire confidence as the direction of Court existed in favour of respondent/petitioner to be considered for regularization from 1997 itself. The authorities cannot be permitted to pick and choose in the matter of consideration of case for regularization under the orders of Court. The authorities of the State, therefore, are not justified in denying consideration to the case of respondent appellant for regularization soon after issuance of notification dated 20.12.2001 and in any view before making any regular appointment in accordance with the relevant service rules by virtue of amended rule 2 (iii). 47. Viewed from such intendment in the rules of regularization notified on 20.12.2001 the action of appellant authorities in not considering petitioner's claim for regularization within a reasonable period despite an order of the competent Court cannot be approved. 48. We are, therefore, of the view that the claim of respondent/petitioner to be regularized w.e.f. 20.12.2001 in light of the order of the writ Court dated 21.2.1997 or in any event prior to regular appointment made in permanent or temporary vacancy in accordance with relevant service rules is liable to be considered by the Chief Engineer concerned in light of our above observations within a period of two months from the date of presentation of a copy of this order. The order of regularization dated 31.12.2018 shall stand amended in terms of the order to be passed by the Chief Engineer. The authorities shall be at liberty to determine the date on which regular appointment on the post in the cadre was made after 20.12.2001, since the benefit of regularization in any event will have to be extended from a date prior to such regular appointment. The appellants, therefore, are commanded to extend all service and retiral benefits, which are found due and payable to the respondent/petitioner within a further period of six weeks, thereafter. The appellants, therefore, are commanded to extend all service and retiral benefits, which are found due and payable to the respondent/petitioner within a further period of six weeks, thereafter. The instant special appeal, is therefore, disposed off in the above terms. Parties to bear their own costs.