JUDGMENT V.K. Sharma, J. The petition has been filed on the following prayers vide para 7 (a) and (b): “(a) The respondents may kindly be directed to regularize the applicant on completion of 10 years on continuous service as Mali-cum-chowkidar and give him the other consequential benefits including pension by counting the daily rated period for the purpose of pension. (b) The respondents may further be directed to regularize the service of the applicant and give him all the consequential benefits flowing from that date.” 2. In reply on behalf of respondents No.1 and 2 the following stand has been taken vide para 3 (iv) A ) & B) : “A) Admitted to the extent that the applicant had completed 20 years daily waged services at the time of policy framed by the H. P. Govt. for regularization of daily paid workers, but the applicant had crossed his superannuation age of 60 years as daily waged worker being his date of birth as 5.9.1937 thus his past daily waged services were not counted for towards regularization. B) As submitted above that the applicant had not worked with the department as a regular employee, hence he is not entitled for pensionary benefits. As per rule 14 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, period of services paid from contingencies shou8ld be type of work or job for which regular posts could have been sanctioned e.g. Malies, Chowkidars, Khalashies etc. whereas the applicant has engaged on different forestry works on daily waged basis with intermittent breaks and was subsequently retired from his daily waged services of mazdoor keeping in view his superannuation age of retirement i.e. 60 years and not a mali, chowki9dar, khalashi etc. The daily waged services rendered by the applicant were not continuous and were with intermittent breaks. Hence the period of daily waged services of the applicant cannot be counted for the purpose of pension. This rule is not relevant in the instance case as the applicant was never paid from contingencies, as the respondent did not have any contingent funds.” 3. The following averments have been set up on behalf of respondent No.3 vide para 6 of the reply :- “In reply to this para it is respectfully submitted that pension case of the applicant has not yet been received from the Department so far. The following averments have been set up on behalf of respondent No.3 vide para 6 of the reply :- “In reply to this para it is respectfully submitted that pension case of the applicant has not yet been received from the Department so far. Thus as soon as pension case of the applicant is received and if found in order, the Replying Respondent will consider the case for the grant of admissible pensionary benefits if otherwise the applicant is found eligible. At present there is no action on the part of the Replying Respondent. Rest of the averments needs no submission.” 4. Rejoinder to the above reply on behalf of respondents No.1 and 2 has been filed. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits at the very outset that the case of the petitioner is covered under judgments of this Court in Mool Raj Upadhyaya versus State of HP and others, 1994 Suppl (2) Supreme Court Cases 316, Rakesh Kumar versus State of HP & Ors, CWP No. 2735 of 2010, dated 28th July, 2010 and State of Himachal Pradesh and Others versus Sarab Dayal, C.W.P. No. 180 of 2001, dated 19.7.2007. 6. In view of the above, if, on facts, the case of the petitioner is covered under the judgments referred to hereinabove and he is also a similarly situate person, as the petitioner(s) in those cases, he shall also be treated similarly without any discrimination and benefit of the said judgments shall also be extended to him along with consequential benefits, if any, within three months from the date of production of copy of this judgment by the petitioner before the respondents/ competent authority. 7. The petition stands disposed of, so also pending CMP(s), if any.