JUDGMENT :

The petitioner became enrolled as a daily wage worker w.e.f. 1.1.1993. The work charged status became conferred upon him w.e.f. 1.1.2003. His regularization in service was made in the year 2006. Though, the writ petitioner claims that all his post retiral benefits being governed by the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. However, the respondents in their reply on affidavit contend, that since the regularization in service of the writ petitioner occurred after 15.05.2003. Consequently, they submitted that since the notification of 17.08.2006 makes prescription(s) that all appointments made against substantive posts in Himachal Pradesh, immediately after 15.05.2003, being governed by the Himachal Pradesh Civil Services Contributory Pension Rules, 2006, than by the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, and, thereupon, the notification (supra) rather prevailing over the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972.

2. Though, vis-a-vis, the entrants into regular service after May, 2003, the post retiral benefits become governed by the Himachal Pradesh Civil Services Contributory Pension Rules, 2006. However, yet the learned counsel for the petitioner, seeks the making of a mandamus, upon the respondents to grant him, the benefit of CCS Pension Rules, 1972. However, for the reasons to be assigned hereinafter, the afore claimed mandamus, is, declined.

3. This Court, in a binding, and, conclusive verdict made upon CWP No. 180 of 2001, decided on 31.05.2012, titled as State of H.P. & Anr. vs. Ram Lal and others, had formulated the hereinafter extracted question of law, for determination being made thereon:-

“Whether the services rendered on daily waged basis by the employees before their regularization/grant of work charged status qre to be taken into consideration for the purpose of counting their qualifying service for grant of pension under the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, and, if so, to what extent?

Therein it has been held, that the period of rendition of services by the employees either in a daily wage capacity or in a work charged capacity, not making them eligible for the purpose of grant of pension, under, the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, has not been able to place on record any verdict, as made by the Hon'ble Apex Court, upon, any apposite SLP, as became preferred there before, and, where through, the verdict supra became annulled. Reiteratedly, hence the verdict supra has acquired the fullest conclusive and binding effect. Moreover, this Court, had through its verdict made, on 20th August, 2021, upon, CWPOA No. 6294 of 2019, titled as Duni Chand vs. State of H.P. & Ors., had after making an adnauseam interpretation of Rule 4 of the General Provident Fund (CS) Rules, and, also upon, its ascribing, the, correct meaning to the coinage “temporary post”, hence occurring in Fundamental Rules 9 (30), besides upon its making an interpretation of Rule 2 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, had made, their respective interpretation(s), in the hereinafter extracted manner:-

“4. Nonetheless, a reading of Rule 4 of General Provident Fund (CS) Rules (for short “GPF Rules”), Rule whereof, stands extracted hereinafter, makes abundant and clear echoings, that all temporary government servants after a continuous, service of one year, shall become eligible to subscribe to the funds concerned. Moreover, NOTE-3 appended thereunder also made bespeaking, that temporary government servants, who have been appointed against regular vacancies, and, who are likely to complete more than a period of one year, may subscribe to GPF any time before completion of one year service.

“4. Conditions of eligibility

All temporary Government servants after a continuous service of one year, all re-employed pensioners (other than those eligible for admission to the Contributory Provident Fund) and all permanent Government Servants shall subscribe to the Fund:

Provided that no such servant as has been