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

JUDGMENT :

(Satyen Vaidya, J.)

1. By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for grant of following substantive reliefs:

“i) That the respondents may kindly be directed to consider the case of the applicant to allot the G.P.F. number and also to cover the applicant under old Pension Scheme.

ii) That the respondents may kindly be directed to pay the balance amount of arrears granted to the applicant on account of the grant of work charge status w.e.f. 01.01.2001 by deducting an amount of Rs.65,000/- with 9% interest.”

2. Brief facts necessary for adjudication of the petition are that petitioner was engaged as daily wage Beldar w.e.f. 01.01.1991. His services were regularized as Peon w.e.f. 15.09.2006.

3. Petitioner had approached this Court by way of CWP No.2023 of 2011 seeking relief of conferment of work charge status on completion of 10 years of daily wage services. In pursuance to the order passed by this Court in CWP No. 2023 of 2011, the respondents conferred the work charge status on petitioner w.e.f. 01.01.2001. On this count, petitioner was also held entitled to arrears to the tune of Rs.3,26,370/-. The petitioner was paid only a sum of Rs.65,000/- out of the aforesaid calculated amount and the balance remained to be paid.

4. The grievance of the petitioner is that firstly, he is entitled to the balance amount of arrears out of the calculated amount of Rs.3,26,370/- and secondly, he is also entitled for all consequential benefits including the allotment of GPF number as his services w.e.f. 01.01.2001 on work charge establishment followed by the regular service w.e.f. 15.09.2006 is liable for consideration for the purpose of pensionary benefits.

5. The respondents have filed the reply. It is submitted that the petitioner was conferred the work charge status w.e.f. 01.01.2001 in pursuance to the order passed by this Court in CWP No. 2023 of 2011, though initially the arrears payable to petitioner were calculated at Rs.3,26,370/-, but only Rs.65,275/- was paid as first instalment. Subsequently, in compliance to instruction dated 15.12.2011 issued by the Principal Secretary (Finance) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, the claim of arrears payable to the petitioner was restricted to a period of three years only and it was found that petitioner was entitled to Rs.53,000/- and a sum of Rs.12,174/- was recoverable from him.

6. As regards, the entitlement of petitioner for subscription of GPF, the respondents have taken a stand that they had submitted the case of the petitioner to Accountant General, Himachal Pradesh, but the said office rejected the case of the petitioner with following remarks:

“As per the Govt. Notification No.Fin.(c) A(3)-4/2001 dated 13.01.2016, all work charged employees, whose services have been regularized after 15.05.2003, against the regular posts and given work charge status in compliance to the orders of Hon’ble Court before 15.05.2003 are not eligible for the subscription of GPF and the period of work charge status is also not accountable towards the pensionary benefits under CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972.”

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

8. 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”

9. Later in State of H.P. & others vs. Matwar Singh & another, CWP No. 2384 of 2018, decided by a Division Bench of this Co