Judgment Permod Kohli, J. 1. Through this writ petition, the petitioner seeks a direction for his regularization and payment of pension on retirement. The petitioner was appointed as Store Mate on work charge basis in Haryana State Electricity Board in the month of March, 1969. After rendering 21 years 10 months of service, he was retired on 31.1.1991 on attaining the age of superannuation i.e. 60 years. It is alleged that the State Government had issued two circulars dated 23.3.1987 followed by circular dated 6.4.1990, whereunder the work charge employees were required to be regularized and brought on the regular establishment of the Board. It is further alleged that after the retirement, petitioner made a representation dated 20.12.1995 for his regularization and pensionary benefits but there is no response, hence the present writ petition. 2. The petitioner has placed reliance upon above mentioned circulars and the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court of India in Piara Singhs case reported as A.I.R. 1992 Supreme Court 2130. 3. When the matter was heard on the last date of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner sought time to produce 1987 circular which has been produced alongwith C.M. No. 11547 of 2007 and has been taken on the record. A perusal of the circular indicates that the State of Haryana issued instructions to all the Heads of Departments of the Government communicating the decision of the Government to regularize the work charged employees engaged on work charge basis in the Haryana State who have completed four years or more of continuous service on 31.12.1986. Reference is also made to the other circular dated 6.4.1990 in the writ petition itself, whereunder a work charged employee who has completed four years of service as on 30.9.1988 shall be regularized. Claim of the petitioner has been resisted by the respondent-Board primarily on two counts, i.e. (i) that during his service, the petitioner never claimed his regularization; (ii) that the petitioner has already received his E.P.F. including the contribution of 50% share made by the Board and thus he is not entitled to claim regularization after a lapse of 5-1/2 years of his retirement. In the writ petition filed by the Board, it is however admitted that the Board offered regular appointment to the petitioner as Store Mate vide its offer dated 17.4.1990 but the petitioner refused to accept the same. In the writ petition filed by the Board, it is however admitted that the Board offered regular appointment to the petitioner as Store Mate vide its offer dated 17.4.1990 but the petitioner refused to accept the same. A copy of the letter of offer dated 17.4.1990 has also been placed on record as Annexure R-1. In the replication filed as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is stated that this offer never reached the petitioner. From the copy of the offer on record, it is clear that the name and fathers name as also the addresses mentioned in the offer is different than the one in the writ petition. There is no dispute regarding identity of the petitioner that there has been some mistake in forwarding the offer and there is possibility that the offer did not reach the petitioner. Even in the written statement, the respondent Board has mentioned about the clerical mistake in mentioning the name and fathers name etc. in the offer letter. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. It is not the case of the respondent-Board that the petitioner as not eligible in terms of the policy decision for such regularization. Mr. Manohar Lall, learned counsel for the respondent has contended that the two circulars relied upon by the petitioner are issued only for Government employees and not for the Board. If that is the position, there was no occasion for the Board to have made an offer. The offer itself indicates that the Board has either adopted the resolution/circular of the State Government or taken some policy decision to regularize the work charged employees. Hence there is no reason to deny the claim of the petitioner for regularization, particularly when the petitioner did not suffer any disqualification. I am also supported by two decisions of this Court reported in Sukhi Ram v. Haryana State Electricity Board, 1991(2) SCT 85 : 1991(3) Supplement RSJ 1, which is based upon a Full Bench Judgment of this Court reported as Kesar Chand v. State of Punjab through the Secretary P.W.D. B&R Chandigarh and others, (1988-2)119 PLR 223. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Board states that the petitioner has received the entire amount of EPF including the contribution made by the Board and thus is not entitled to the pensionary benefits. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Board states that the petitioner has received the entire amount of EPF including the contribution made by the Board and thus is not entitled to the pensionary benefits. 5. In view of the policy decision of the respondent-Board and the law laid down by this Court, I allow this writ petition and direct the respondent Board to regularize the services of the petitioner and also to calculate his pensionary benefits and pay the same within a period of four months from the date copy of this judgment is served upon the respondent Board. The respondent Board is however entitled to deduct the contribution made by the Board towards EPF along with interest at the rate on which it is payable on GPF with effect from one month after the date of retirement. The respondent Board is also liable to pay interest to the petitioner at the same rate payable on GPF w.e.f. one month after the retirement till the payment of pension.