this Court, a fresh order has been passed on 28.1.2021 denying the claim of the petitioner on the ground that his services were regularized on 22.3.2016, as such, the tenure of the services rendered by the petitioner did not fall within the qualifying service in terms of Rule 19(b) of the Uttar Pradesh State Aided-educational Institutions Employee's Contributory Provident Fund-Insurance-Pension Rules, 1964 (in short '1964, Rules'). The said dispute is no more res integra and was specifically considered by this Court in the case of Sunita Sharma (supra) wherein this Court considered the scope of Rule 19 (b) of 1964, Rules and held that services rendered by the petitioner therein as ad hoc would also be counted for the purpose of Rule 19 (b) of the Rules, 1964. Against the said judgment dated 20.12.2018, Special Appeal Defective No. 181 of 2020 has also been dismissed by means of an order dated 11.6.2020. Similar issue also came up before this Court in Writ A No. 8043 of 2020 (Vijendra Singh Vs. District Inspector of Schools and 3 others) which was allowed by this Court on 1.10.2020 and the special appeal preferred against the said order has also been dismissed on 19.2.2021 in Special Appeal Defective No. 163 of 2021. Thus, the issue of counting of ad hoc services is well settled.
