A. N. Jindal, J.:— The trial court, vide judgment dated 7.10.2010 decreed plaintiff's suit for mandatory injunction directing the defendants-appellants to grant increments after completion of 8/18 years of service and an increment after getting higher post after fixation of pay by counting seniority of their daily wages service w. e. f. 1980 till regularization i. e. 7.5.1993 along with consequential benefits. The appeal preferred against the said judgment and decree was dismissed by the first appellate court on 17.5.2011. Still feeling aggrieved, the appellants-defendants (herein referred as, 'the appellants') have come up with this regular second appeal. Learned counsel for the appellants has stated that in the light of the judgment delivered in case Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam & others vs. Bachan Singh, 2010 (1) RSJ 274, in which the Hon'ble Bench approved the Division Bench judgment passed by this Court while observing that the law as has been articulated in a large number of cases where this court has observed that any discriminatory action on the part of the Government would be liable to be struck down. Hence, in this case, it would be totally unreasonable and irrational to deny the respondent the pensionary benefits under the scheme particularly when the appellants have failed to produce any record showing that the instructions dated 6.8.1993 and 9.8.1994 were actually got noted in writing by the respondent. In the absence of any such material it can well be inferred that the respondent had no knowledge about the option called by the appellants. Thus, no indiscriminatory attitude could be opted for the present respondents and they were entitled to have the pensionary benefits. However, the Board was at liberty to detect the employer's share received by him/her under the E. P. F. Scheme along with interest accrued thereon. As such, this appeal qua extending pensionary benefits of temporary work charged services undergone by the petitioners has to be counted towards pensionary benefits. As regards the work charge services to be counted towards seniority and promotion or any ACP scheme, it may be observed that the Division Bench of this Court in case State of Haryana and another vs. Om Parkash Nagra and others, 2012 (2) S. C. T. 76 observed as under :- “9. As regards the work charge services to be counted towards seniority and promotion or any ACP scheme, it may be observed that the Division Bench of this Court in case State of Haryana and another vs. Om Parkash Nagra and others, 2012 (2) S. C. T. 76 observed as under :- “9. It is obvious that for the purposes of seniority, promotion or some other benefits, the service rendered on work-charge basis ad hoc basis or daily rate basis could not be counted. However, this principle would not be attracted in a case where the consideration proceeds on different plane i. e. when the question of pension comes. ” Impliedly, the Division Bench observed that the temporary service as work-charge employee could be considered towards pension and not towards seniority, promotion or extending some other benefits. Recently, the Division Bench of this Court in case State of Haryana and others vs. Surindra Kumar Mishra & others, 2012 (1) RSJ 510 observed as under :- “11. Learned counsel has not been able to satisfy us while placing reliance in Dr. Gagan Inder Kaur & Ors. Vs. Union Territory of Chandigarh & Ors. (CWP 368 of 1987) decided on 17.10.1995 that even though an appointment may be described as ad hoc but in reality it is an appointment on regular basis made in accordance with the procedure that was required to be followed for making a regular appointment under the Rules 1937, which were considered by the Bench and dubbing them as ad hoc would be erroneous. The application of the law laid down in Direct Recruit's case (supra) would save the petitioner-respondents in this appeal inasmuch as that once an appointment is made to the post according to the existing Rule, then seniority has to be counted from the date of appointment and not according to the date of confirmation. Assuming that in case even some further technicality remained to be rectified then also the seniority from initial date of appointment would run as explained in State of West Bengal Vs. Aghore Nath Dey 1993 (3) SCC 371 :- “The question, therefore, is of the category which would be covered by conclusion (B) excluding therefrom the cases covered by the corollary in conclusion (A). Aghore Nath Dey 1993 (3) SCC 371 :- “The question, therefore, is of the category which would be covered by conclusion (B) excluding therefrom the cases covered by the corollary in conclusion (A). In our opinion, the conclusion (B) was added to cover a different kind of situation, wherein the appointments are otherwise regular, except for the deficiency of certain procedural requirements laid down by the rules. This is clear from the opening words of the conclusion (B), namely, 'if the initial appointment is not made by following the procedure laid down by the 'rules' and the latter expression 'till the regularization of his service in accordance with the rules'. We read conclusion (B), and it must be so read to reconcile with conclusion (A), to cover the cases where the initial appointment is made against an existing vacancy, not limited to a fixed period of time our purpose by the appointment order itself, and is made subject to the deficiency in the procedural requirements prescribed by the rules for adjudging suitability of the appointee for the post being cured at the time of regularization, the appointee being eligible and qualified in every manner for a regular appointment on the date of initial appointment in such cases. Decision about the nature of the appointment, for determining whether it falls in this category, has to be made on the basis of the terms of the initial appointment itself and the provisions in the rules. In such cases, the deficiency in the procedural requirements laid down by the rules has to be cured at the first available opportunity, without any default of the employee, and the appointee must continue in the post uninterruptedly till the regularization of his service, in accordance with the rules. In such cases, the appointee is not to blame for the deficiency in the procedural requirements under the rules at the time of his initial appointment, and the appointment not being limited to a fixed period of time is intended to be a regular appointment, subject to the remaining procedural requirements of the rules being fulfilled at the earliest. In such cases, the appointee is not to blame for the deficiency in the procedural requirements under the rules at the time of his initial appointment, and the appointment not being limited to a fixed period of time is intended to be a regular appointment, subject to the remaining procedural requirements of the rules being fulfilled at the earliest. In such cases also, if there be any delay in curing the defects on account of any fault of the appointee, the appointee would not get the full benefit of the earlier period on account of his default, the benefit being confined only to the period for which he is not to blame. This category of cases is different from those covered by the corollary in conclusion(A) which relates to appointment only on ad hoc basis as a stopgap arrangement and not according to rules. ” It was also observed in case Dharam Pal vs. The Superintending Engineer, Operation Circle UHBVNL, Karnal and another, 2007 (1) S. C. T. 496 that the petitioner could be held entitled to the computation of the work charged service as qualifying service. The employer's contribution in the provident fund drawn by the petitioner shall be adjusted and set off from the arrears which may become payable after the afore- mentioned calculation and computation. The respondents shall undertake the exercise of computation of arrears and complete the same within a period of two months from the date a certified copy of this order is supplied to them. The petitioner shall also be entitled to interest on the arrears after setting off employer's contribution from provident fund @ 8% per annum from the date the arrears were payable till the date of payment. However, the arrears resulting from recalculation of pay/pension after adding the aforementioned period of ad hoc service shall be confined only to three years two months preceding the date of filing the writ petition. Consequently, this appeal is partly accepted and it is ordered that the employer's contribution towards provident fund would be adjusted from the arrears which may become payable after the calculation and computation, which exercise would be completed within two months from the date the certified copy of the judgment is supplied. Consequently, this appeal is partly accepted and it is ordered that the employer's contribution towards provident fund would be adjusted from the arrears which may become payable after the calculation and computation, which exercise would be completed within two months from the date the certified copy of the judgment is supplied. However, the petitioner would be entitled to the arrears resulting from such re-calculation of pay/pension adding the aforesaid period of ad-hoc service for only three years and two months from the date of filing the suit along with interest @ 8% per annum. However, they would not be entitled to computation of the period ad-hoc service towards seniority, promotion or for extending any other benefits.