Work-charge service must be counted for pensionary benefits, as established by prior legal precedents.

JUDGMENT :

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J.

1. Notice. Ms. Menka Raj Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General and Mr. Tek Ram Sharma, Advocate, appear and waive service of notice on behalf of respondents No.1 to 5 and respondents No.6, respectively.

2. Considering the grievance of petitioner, the nature of the order impugned in the writ petition and the legal position settled by the Hon’ble Apex Court, there is not necessity for calling of reply from the respondents. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, matter is heard at this stage.

3. This writ petition has been filed for the grant of following substantive reliefs:-

“i. That writ in the nature of certiorari may kindly be issued, whereby quashing and setting aside the impugned office order dated 19.10.2024, issued by the respondent No.5, being illegal and arbitrary.

ii. That an appropriate writ, order or direction may kindly be issued to the respondents to release pension and other retiral benefits from the date it has become due till actually paid with interest in favour of the petitioner, with all consequential benefits.

iii. That the respondents may also kindly be directed to pay interest on delayed payment of retiral dues, including pension, leave encashment, GPF, commutation of pension and gratuity from the date it has become due till actually paid.”

4. Petitioner was initially engaged as daily waged worker in Solan, Forest Division w.e.f. 20.01.1987. His services were regularized w.e.f. 21.09.2007 as Forest Worker. Petitioner retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.07.2016 (58 years).

5. Petitioner institutedCWP No. 2204 of 2023, seeking work-charge status on completion of 8 years of daily waged service. The writ petition was disposed of on 30.05.2023, with directions to the respondent to consider the case of the petitioner in light of decision rendered in State of H.P. & Ors. vs. Surajmani & Anr., LPA No. 165 of 2021 decided on 12.01.2023. In compliance to above directions, respondent No.5 considered the case and vide order dated 19.10.2024 held that :-

(i) There is no specific provision under the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, to count work-charge service for pensionary benefits;

(ii). The respondents-Forest Department has preferred Special Leave Petition (C) No.23016 of 2023 against the decision rendered in Surajmani, LPA No.165 of 2021 decided on 12.01.2023 along with connected matters, which is pending adjudication.

Feeling aggrieved, petitioner has instituted this writ petition.

(i) Insofar as the respondents’ refusal to count work- charge service for pensionary benefits is concerned, the law is well-settled that work-charge service is to be counted for pensionary benefits. Reference in this regard can be made to Jogi Ram vs. State of H.P. & Ors.,CWP No. 7124 of 2021 decided on 25.02.2025, where settled law has been summed up. Relevant portion of the same reads as under:-

4. Respondents’ stand for not counting the work charge service rendered by the petitioner towards pensionary benefits cannot be sustained in view of the law laid down by this Court as also by the Hon’ble Apex Court, which has been summarized in Naina Devi vs. State of H.P. & others [CWP No. 2960 of 2020 decided on 9.8.2024] as under:-

“7. 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