ORDER :

This Larger Bench has been constituted by Hon’ble the Acting Chief Justice to adjudicate and answer the following question :

“Whether the views expressed in CWP No.3396 of 2021 and Ex. Pet. No.117 of 2018 in CWP No.267 of 2015 OR the view expressed in the present judgment is the appropriate application of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sunder Singh’s case.”

2. Sunder Singh was appointed, on 1.1.1993, as a Baildar on daily-waged basis. His services were regularised with effect from 1.1.2002 after completion of 8 years service, and he retired on 31.1.20211, after serving, on regular basis, for 9 years 1 month. On account of denial of pension, for not having completed qualifying service of 10 years at his credit, as required under CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, he approached this Court, by filing CWP No.3496 of 2011, by invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking direction to count half of his daily-waged service towards qualifying service and thereafter pay pension to him from the due date alongwith incidental benefits.

3. Claim of Sunder Singh was based upon judgment dated 19.7.2007, passed by a Division Bench of this High Court in CWP No.180 of 2001, titled as State of H.P. & others v. Sarab Dayal, wherein it was held as follows :

“We are, therefore, of the considered view that 50% of the continuous service rendered by the employees on daily rated basis followed by work charge/regular employment should be taken into account while calculating the qualifying service for purposes of entitlement to and the amount of pension to be paid to them.”

4. The State had filed Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court against aforesaid judgment dated 19.7.2007, but raising new questions before the Supreme Court and, thus, matter was remanded by the Supreme Court to this Court for fresh adjudication, with following observations :

“We have perused the records and heard the learned counsel for the parties. We are of the considered view that an entirely new case has been weaved out before this Court. There are no pleadings to that effect. In this view of the matter, we are constrained to set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court and remit the matters to the High Court for fresh adjudication. To avoid any confusion, we direct the State to file a comprehensive amended writ petition in the High Court within eight weeks and reply of the same be filed within eight weeks thereafter and rejoinder, if any, within four weeks thereafter.”

5. Consequent to directions of the Supreme Court, the Division Bench had formulated the question of law, arising before it to be adjudicated in CWP No.180 of 2001 and connected matters, as under :

“Whether the services rendered on daily waged basis by the employees before their regularization/grant of work charged status are 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.”

6. The aforesaid issue was answered by the Division Bench, vide judgment dated 31.5.2012, as under :

“…….Consequently, we answer the question framed by us earlier by holding that the service rendered on daily waged basis by the employees before their regularization/grant of work charged status cannot be taken into consideration for counting their qualifying service for grant of pension under the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972. The writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.”

7. Vide order dated 31.5.2012, CWP No.3496 of 2011, titled as Sunder Singh v. State of H.P., was also disposed of by the same Division Bench of this High Court in terms of judgment dated 31.5.2012, passed in CWP No.180 of 2001 (supra).

8. Sunder Singh approached the Supreme Court of India by filing SLP No.34038 of 2012, which was allowed and the petitioner was granted special leave to file Civil Appeal No.6309 of 2017 against the order passed by the High Court in CWP No.3496 of 2011,