Point of Law: Once work charge employment of the petitioner is held liable to be counted for the grant of pensionary benefits to him, as a natural corollary, he will be governed under CCS Pension Rules, 1972 and the Contributory Pension Scheme will not be applicable to him.

ORDER :

By way of instant petition, the petitioner has prayed for following substantive reliefs:

(i) That writ in the nature of certiorari may kindly be issued to quash Annexure P-3 as far as it gave notional work charge status to the petitioner.

(ii) That the writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued to the respondents to give work charge status to the petitioner with effect from 02.06.2002 on actual basis alongwith entire consequential benefits along with others incidental benefits thereof such as arrears of salary, GPF deduction, pensionary benefits and seniority etc.”

2. Brief facts necessary for adjudication of the petition are that the petitioner was engaged as daily waged Chainman by the respondents on 02.06.1992. He worked continuously with the respondents in Shimla Division with 240 days in each calendar year. Petitioner was regularized on 20.12.2007. Subsequently, vide Annexure P-3 dated 02.01.2012, petitioner was conferred work charge status w.e.f. 02.06.2002 on notional basis.

3. The grievance of the petitioner is that he was entitled to work charge status in terms of the policy adopted by the State on completion of 10 years continuous service on daily wages and hence the grant of such benefit notionally was not justified. He further seeks all consequential benefits including pensionary benefits and seniority etc. on the premise that he was entitled for conferment of work charge status w.e.f. 02.06.2002 on actual basis and not on notional basis.

4. The respondents have filed the reply. It is submitted that the petitioner has been allowed actual financial benefits w.e.f. 21.12.2009 i.e. for the period three years prior to filing of the petition. The matter regarding grant of pensionary benefits was referred by the Administrative Department to the Finance Department, but the Finance Department rejected the case of petitioner on the ground that the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, were applicable only to regular Government employees appointed on or before 14.05.2003. All Government employees appointed on or after 15.05.2003, on regular basis, are covered under the Contributory Pension Scheme and also New Pension Scheme and such employees are governed by the H.P. Civil Services Contributory Pension Rules, 2006. Accordingly, the respondents have taken a stand that the work charge service of petitioner cannot be taken as qualifying service for pensionary benefits and seniority.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the records of the case carefully.

6. In State of H.P. and others vs. Sukru Ram and another, CMPM no. 423 of 2017, decided by a Division Bench of this Court on 23.5.2017, it was held as under:

“The issue is no longer res integra, which stands settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Punjab State Electricity Board and another v. Narata Singh and another, (2010) 4 SCC 317, as also earlier decision of this Court in CWP No. 2240 of 2008, titled as The State of H.P. and others v. Sh. Tulsi Ram, decided on 31.5.2012, in which learned Single Judge, while holding the service rendered by the writ petitioner on work-charged basis from 1.4.2001 to 2.4.2017 to be counted for the purpose of pension”

7. Later in State of H.P. & others vs. Matwar Singh & another, CWP No. 2384 of 2018, decided by a Division Bench of this Court on 18.12.2018, it was held as under:-

“It is by now well settled that the work charge status followed by regular appointment has to be counted as a component of qualifying service for the purpose of pension and other retiral benefits. Executive instructions, if any, issued by the Finance Department to the contrary, are liable to be ignored/struck down, in the light of view taken by this Court in CWP No.6167 of 2017, titled Sukru Ram vs. State of H.P. & others, decided on 6th March, 2013. A Full Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court in Keshar Chand vs. State of Punjab through the Secretary P.W.D. B & R Chandigarh and others, (1988) 94(2) PLR 223, also dealt with an