JUDGMENT Deepak Gupta, J.(Oral)-This writ petition is directed against the order of the erstwhile H.P. State Administrative Tribunal, dated October 12, 2006, passed in OA(M) No.152 of 2004. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that Mohan Lal, responder herein, worked on daily wage basis with the Executive Engineer, HPPWD, Sarkaghat, w.e.f. 1974. On the basis of his seniority, he was regularized as work charge Beldar on 3.10.1984 in accordance with the regularization policy of the State Government. He retired from the Government service on 31.7.1992 i.e. after 7 years, 9 months and 29 days of regular service. Thus, the respondent worked for 10 years as daily wager and for 7 years, 9 months and 29 days as regular employee. 3. The learned Tribunal, vide the impugned order, has directed that half of the service rendered by the applicant prior to his regularization should be counted towards qualifying service for pension and then the pension be determined and paid to the applicant. Aggrieved by this order, the State has filed the present writ petition. 4. This matter was dealt with by this Court in detail in State of H.P. and others versus Sarab Dayal, Latest HLJ 2007 (HP) 1292, wherein, after discussing the entire law, this Court held as follows: “21. The next contention on behalf of the employees is that in terms of decision NO.2 taken by the Government of India and quoted hereinabove, half of the service rendered on daily wages should be counted. Admittedly all the employees were employed in jobs involving full and whole time employment. It is also a fact that though they were paid on daily wages, they were found a type of work or were working against such posts which could have been sanctioned but for reasons best known to the State the posts were not actually sanctioned. The decision also envisages that the service should be one for which payment is made on monthly or daily rates computed and paid on monthly basis. In all the cases before us, the employees though engaged on daily rated basis were paid on monthly basis. The employee who were paid on daily wage basis continued in service for long period of 10 years or more whereafter they were brought on work charge establishment and their services were regularized. 22. In all the cases before us, the employees though engaged on daily rated basis were paid on monthly basis. The employee who were paid on daily wage basis continued in service for long period of 10 years or more whereafter they were brought on work charge establishment and their services were regularized. 22. The stand of the State is that the employee were not persons paid from contingencies. According to the State, the employees were paid out of the sanctioned plan expenditure of the works where they were employed. It is submitted that the employees have not been paid out of the contingency fund. This contention is without any force. The word “contingencies” as used in the Rules does not relate to the contingent fund of the - State. In our considered view the words contingencies in the present case must be given its natural grammatical meaning. The Concise Oxford Dictionary defines contingencies as a future event or circumstance which is possible but cannot be predicted with certainty. It also defines contingencies to mean a provision made for meeting for such event or circumstance. Black’s Law Dictionary defines contingencies as something that may or may not happen; an event which may occur; possibility etc. it is clear that contingencies in respect of Pension Rules only means that the works are not paid from out of the regular salary account of the State, but are paid from other funds which are created to meet such possible contingencies. Therefore, the benefit of decision No.2 under Rule 14 is available both to persons who were in casual and daily rated employment as well as persons paid from contingencies as long as the conditions mentioned in decision No.2 are met. 23 It would also be pertinent to add that we see no reasons for differentiating between daily rated workmen who have been allowed to continue for 10 years or more and employees paid from contingencies. There is no rational nexus in this classification. The classification, if accepted, would be totally arbitrary, invidious and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In our considered opinion the daily rated workmen who are permitted to continue for 10 long years followed by regularization cannot be denied the benefit of pension on this count. 24. There is no rational nexus in this classification. The classification, if accepted, would be totally arbitrary, invidious and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In our considered opinion the daily rated workmen who are permitted to continue for 10 long years followed by regularization cannot be denied the benefit of pension on this count. 24. While taking the aforesaid view, we also derive support from the decision of the Apex Court in State of U.P. and others Vs. Ajay Kumar (1997) 4 SCC 88 (supra) wherein the Apex Court clearly held that daily wage appointment is obviously in relation to contingent establishment. This also indicates that daily wage employment is in the nature of a contingency. 25. We are, therefore, of the considered view that 50% of the continuous service rendered by the employees on daily rated basis followed by work charge/regular employment should be taken into account while calculating the qualifying service for purposes of entitlement to and the amount of pension to be paid to them.” – 5. In view of the law laid down by us in Sarab Dayal’s case (supra), 50% of the continuous daily waged service rendered by an employee has to be taken into account while calculating the qualifying service. The applicant worked on daily wages for 10 years and 50% of this is 5 years. He worked on regular basis for 7 years, 9 months and 29 days. Therefore, for the purpose of calculating his pension, the qualifying service will be taken to be 12 years, 9 months and 29 days. 6. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed and the State is directed to release the pension of the respondent alongwith arrears latest by 30th April, 2010.