JUDGMENT :

1. The writ petitioner became conferred the status of a work charged employee, under the respondents in the year 2000. Subsequently thereto, he became regularised, as, a Chowkidar under the respondents in the year 2007.

2. Since, vis-a-vis, the entrants into regular service after May, 2003, the post retiral benefits becomes governed by the Himachal Pradesh Civil Services Contributory Pension Rules, 2006. Therefore, 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 therebefore, and, wherethrough, 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 there under 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 required or permitted to subscribe to contributory Provident Fund shall be eligible to join or continue as a subscriber to the Fund, while he retains his right to sub-scribe to such a Fund:

Provided further that a temporary Government servant, who is borne on an establishment or factory to which the provisions of Employees’ Provident Funds Scheme, 1952, framed under the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (19 of 1952) would apply or would have applied but for the exemption granted under section 17 of the said Act, shall subscribe to the General Provident Fund if he has completed six months’ continuous service or has actually worked f