JUDGMENT

Lok Pal Singh, J. - Since the controversy involved in aforementioned petitions is same, therefore, these petitions are being disposed of by this common judgment.

2. By means of present petitions, the petitioners have sought a writ petition in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to fix and release, gratuity, leave encashment and pension alongwith its arrear treating him regular in service and also grant promotional pay scale alongwith its arrears. Further prayer has been made in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to calculate and release the interest @10% per annum on the delayed payment in respect of gratuity on he when it was due.

3. Factual matrix of the case is that the petitioners are appointed on contractual basis on different posts. Thereafter, services of the petitioners were regularized by the respondent department. The respondent department after considering the past satisfactory services of the petitioners regularized the services of the petitioner. The petitioners continued to serve the department till they attained the age of superannuation. Grievance of the petitioners is that after retirement, respondent department is not paying retiral benefits to the petitioners. Hence, these petitions.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that since the petitioners retired from the Department after attaining the age of their superannuation, therefore, they are entitled to all post retiral dues alongwith interest to the petitioners but such benefits were not given to them. He would further submit that the Government has also issued Government Orders which provided that every employee is entitled for promotional pay scale on completion of satisfactory service in the department. He also referred the G.O. dated 22.02.2010, in which it is mentioned that the person who were promoted/absorbed in the department, their past services can be counted for the purpose of selection grade and for promotion, therefore, the petitioners are also entitled for promotional pay scale but the same not been given to the petitioners.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that the matter is covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Netram Sahu Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and another, (2018) 5 SCC 430. Relevant paragraphs of the said judgment is extracted below:

"13. The submission of the learned counsel for the respondent-State was that the appellant could not be held eligible to claim the gratuity amount because out of the total period of 25 years of his service, he worked 22 years as daily wager and only 3 years as regular employee. It is for this reason, the learned counsel urged that the appellant could not be said to have worked continuously for a period of 5 years as provided under the Act so as to make him eligible to claim gratuity.

14. We do not agree with this submission of learned counsel for the respondent-State for more than one reason. First, the appellant has actually rendered the service for a period of 25 years; Second, the State actually regularized his services by passing the order dated 06.05.2008; Third, having regularized the services, the appellant became entitled to claim its benefit for counting the period of 22 years regardless of the post and the capacity on which he worked for 22 years; Fourth, no provision under the Act was brought to our notice which disentitled the appellant from claiming the gratuity and nor any provision was brought to our notice which prohibits the appellant from taking benefit of his long and continuous period of 22 years of service, which he rendered prior to his regularization for calculating his continuous service of five years.

15. In our considered opinion, the High Court committed an error in placing reliance on the decision of this Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. vs. Umadevi(3) & Ors., (2006) 4 SCC 1 to deny the relief o