JUDGMENT Kuldip Singh, J.-The petitioners on 27.10.1998 had filed Original Application No. 2111 of 1998 in the Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal which was lateron abolished. The cases of the erstwhile Tribunal were transferred to this Court and after transfer, the Original Application No. 2111 of 1998 has been registered in this Court as CWP (T) No. 5377 of 2008. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners had served Rosin and Turpentine Factory at Nahan. It has been submitted that the petitioners had served in various trades such as Foreman, Foreman Incharge, Carpenter and Mechanic etc. The petitioners were in the non-ministerial staff. The Rosin and Turpentine Factory, Nahan was remained under Industries Department and lateron it was handed over to Forest Department and thereafter to the Himachal Pradesh State Forest Corporation (for short ‘Corporation’). 3. The petitioners were permanently absorbed in the Corporation and all the petitioners had rendered more than 10 years of service earlier to the date since when their services were absorbed by the Corporation. The petitioners have not been given the benefit of pension as per Pension Rules, 1972. 4. It is the case of the petitioners that as per Pension Rules, in case an employee had rendered 10 years of service in a department on the date of his absorption in some public undertaking and autonomous body, he is entitled to pension on the basis of service rendered by him in the Government department, but this benefit has not been given to the petitioners. It has been submitted that denial of benefit of pension and gratuity to the petitioners after the completion of 10 years of service is illegal and violative of pension rules. The learned counsel for the petitioners has ultimately prayed for grant of benefit of pension to the petitioners as per rules. The learned counsel for the petitioners has relied judgment dated 2.1.2008 of Division Bench of this Court passed in CWP No. 385 of 2002 State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Ishwar Dass. 5. The respondents No. 1 and 4 had contested the petition by filing reply and have submitted by way of preliminary objections that petitioners had retired on different dates in different categories, therefore, joint petition is not maintainable. It has also been pleaded that the pleadings are vague and, therefore, petition is not maintainable. Ishwar Dass. 5. The respondents No. 1 and 4 had contested the petition by filing reply and have submitted by way of preliminary objections that petitioners had retired on different dates in different categories, therefore, joint petition is not maintainable. It has also been pleaded that the pleadings are vague and, therefore, petition is not maintainable. On merits, it has been pleaded that Rosin and Turpentine Factory, Nahan remained under Industry/Forest Department upto 31.3.1974. The employees of the factory were enjoying the benefit as per standing orders when in April 1974 the Corporation took over control of Rosin and Turpentine Factory, Nahan, the standing orders were got amended by the Corporation. It has been pleaded that prior to 1.4. 1974 the pension was not applicable. The workers were given benefits as per the standing orders. The respondents No. 1 and 4 prayed for dismissal of the petition. 6. The petitioners had filed supplementary affidavit dated 23.8.2009 and have given their dates of joining and retirement:- Paras Ram 14.10.1957 30.4.1991 Diwan Singh 20.4.1948 28.2.1990 Rulia Ram 10.3.1955 30.3.1995 Mohan Lal 20.5.1952 30.6.1986 The respondents have not filed any counter to the supplementary affidavit dated 23.8.2009. 7. In CWP No. 385 of 2002 decided on 2.1.2008 after noticing Rule 14(3) of Central Civil Services Pension Rules, the Division Bench has held that petitioner in that case is entitled to pensionary benefits for the services rendered by him with respondent /State of Himachal Pradesh prior to his absorption in Forest Corporation subject to the condition that petitioner had rendered service for the minimum qualifying period. 8. It is not the case of the respondents that prior to serving the Corporation the petitioners had not served more than 10 years in the Forest Department. Therefore, in light of judgment dated 2.1.2008, the petitioners are entitled to pro rata pension for the period they had rendered service in State Government prior to their absorption by the Corporation. 9. In view of the above the petition is allowed with a direction that the petitioners are entitled to pro rata pension for the period they had rendered in the State Government subject to the condition that they had rendered minimum qualifying service for earning pension. 9. In view of the above the petition is allowed with a direction that the petitioners are entitled to pro rata pension for the period they had rendered in the State Government subject to the condition that they had rendered minimum qualifying service for earning pension. The arrears of pension payable to the petitioners shall be restricted to the period of three years prior to the date of filing of the Original Application, such arrears shall be calculated and paid to the petitioners by respondent No.2 within a period of three months from today, failing which the petitioners shall be entitled to interest at the rate of 9% per annum on such arrears till payment. No costs.