JUDGMENT V.K.Sharma, J. (Oral) The petitioner is before this Court in a second round of litigation. An earlier petition being CWP(T) No.9148 of 2008, titled Sital Ram Vs. State of HP and another, filed by him was disposed of vide judgment dated 15.9.2011, text whereof is as under:- “The petition has been filed on the following prayers vide para 7(i) and (ii): “7(i) That the applicant be given the seniority and other pensionary benefits for the period of 2% years. (ii) That the respondents may be directed to pay the amount of leave encashment for the period of 66 days to the applicant.” 2. In reply, the respondents have taken the following stand vide para 6(v) to (viii): “6(v) That in the present O.A., the applicant has sought relief to the extent that he be granted service benefits of 2% years so rendered by him as contingent paid worker between the period 1970-1975 and also consequential retiral benefits by counting this period. In this behalf, it is submitted that the applicant was initially appointed as Peon-cum-Chowkidar at the pay of Rs. 70 + usual allowances on 16.6.70 on contingent basis vide Ann. A-I to the O.A. by the Block development Officer Kangra. Thereafter, the services of applicant was made regular w.e.f. 1.7.75. As such, applicant rendered 5 years & 13 days as a contingent paid temporary employee as perthe provision of Rule 14 of the CCS (Pension) rule, 1972 which is as under: Rule 14: Conditions subject to which service qualifies: (1) The service of a Government servant shall not qualify unless his duties and pay are regulated by the Government, or under conditions determined by the Government. (2) For the purposes of sub-rule (1), the expression “service” means service under the Government and paid by that Fund administered by that government but does not include service in a non-pensionable establishment unless such service is treated as qualifying service by that government. (2) For the purposes of sub-rule (1), the expression “service” means service under the Government and paid by that Fund administered by that government but does not include service in a non-pensionable establishment unless such service is treated as qualifying service by that government. (3) In the case of a government servant belonging to a State Government, who is permanently transferred to a service or post to which these rules apply, the continuous service rendered under the State Government in an officiating or temporary capacity, it any, followed without interruption by substantive appointment, or the continuous service rendered under that Government in an officiating or temporary capacity, as the case may be, shall qualify: Provided that nothing contained in this sub rule shall apply to any such government servant who is appointed otherwise than by deputation to a service or post to which these rules apply. In the present case, the applicant upon superannuation retired on 31.3.99. As per provision of above discussed, Rule 14, he being a contingent worker, has already been granted retiral benefits by counting 21/2 years service benefits by counting this length of service towards pension purpose. Only after counting this half contingent period of five years and 13 days each and every admissible due of the applicant has been granted which is as under: a. Leave-in-cashment = Rs. 39,983/- b. Gratuity = Rs. 63,531/- c. GIS = Rs. 2,880/- d.Regular pension = Rs. 14 14/- PM The pay scale of the applicant at the time of retirement was Rs. 2520- 4140 which was fixed as per notification of the Finance Department dated 20.1.98. Since, at the time of retirement instead of 300 days of earned leaves, only leave of 234 days were found in the credit of applicant. Therefore, the leave -in-cashment of 234 days stood also granted to the applicant. Regarding the claims of the T.A. Bills and stitching charges, it is submitted that the payment of stitching charges have already been paid to Sh. Jaram Singh, Tailor, through Sh. Prakash Chand, Driver of development block whereas no T.A. Bills has been received from the applicant by the BDO. In view of this position, since the applicant stood already granted leave -in-cashment, DCRG, commuted pension, G.P.F., GIS and regular pension, therefore, nothing remains payable to the applicant by the respondent department now. Jaram Singh, Tailor, through Sh. Prakash Chand, Driver of development block whereas no T.A. Bills has been received from the applicant by the BDO. In view of this position, since the applicant stood already granted leave -in-cashment, DCRG, commuted pension, G.P.F., GIS and regular pension, therefore, nothing remains payable to the applicant by the respondent department now. Hence, the present O.A. deserves to be dismissed with costs in the interest of justice.”: 3.Rejoinder refuting the above stand on behalf of the respondents and reiterating the averments set up in the petition has been filed. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits at the very outset that the case of the petitioner is covered under judgment dated16.122010, rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in CWP No.4550 of 2010, Ravi Kumar vs. State of H.P. and another and the connected matters. 5. In view of the above, if on facts the case of the petitioner is covered under the judgment referred to hereinabove in CWP No.4550 of 2010 and the same has attained finality and has been implemented and he is similarly situate, he shall also be treated similarly without any discrimination and benefit of the said judgment alongwith consequential benefits, if any, shall be extended to him within three months from the date of production of copies of this judgment and the judgment referred to hereinabove by the petitioner before the respondents/competent authority. 6.The petition is disposed of in the above terms, so also pending application(s), if any.” 2.In compliance of the above judgment dated 15.9.2011 in CWP (T) No. 9148 of 2008, the matter was considered by respondent No.2, the Director, Rural Development, Himachal Pradesh, who passed order dated 13.6.2012, Annexure P-6, holding that since the service rendered by the petitioner from 18.6.1970 to 30.6.1975 was as ‘contingent paid’, during which he was not granted any increment, this period was liable to be taken into consideration in terms of Rule 14 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 and such decision having been already taken, his case was not covered under judgment dated 16.12.2010 rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in CWP No. 4550 of 2010, Ravi Kumar Vs. State of HP & anr and the connected matters. 3. It is how the petitioner is again before this Court. 4. The controversy between the parties lies within a narrow compass. State of HP & anr and the connected matters. 3. It is how the petitioner is again before this Court. 4. The controversy between the parties lies within a narrow compass. The petitioner is basing his claim on appointment letter dated 16.6.1970, Annexure P-1, according to which he was appointed as Peon­cum-Chowkidar on ‘30/- plus usual allowances under the Rules on regular basis. However, the case of the respondents is that the services rendered by the petitioner during 18.6.1970 to 30.6.1975 were as contingent paid. 5. A bare perusal of appointment letter, Annexure P-1, dated 16.6.1970 would go to show that the petitioner was appointed as Peon­cum-Chowkidar on a regular basis. However, though there are some entries in the service book of the petitioner, produced during the course of hearing of the present petition, to the effect that the service rendered by him from 18.6.1970 to 30.6.1975 was as contingent paid, yet a perusal of the cash book, produced for perusal of the court today, would go to show that the payment made to the petitioner for the month of July, 1970 was on ‘whole time’ basis and not as a contingent paid. Thus, the relevant entries in the service book showing the petitioner as contingent paid are in stark contradiction to the appointment letter, Annexure P-1, dated 16.6.1970 and the entries in the cash book. It being so, the appointment letter coupled with entries in the cash book shall have precedence over the stray entries in the service book showing the petitioner as a contingent paid, which entries even otherwise appear to have been incorporated at a later stage, but without any supporting material. 6.In view of the above, office order, Annexure P-6, dated 13.6.20 12 cannot be sustained and is accordingly quashed. Consequently, the petition is allowed with a direction to the respondents to count the service rendered by the petitioner from 18.6.1970 to 30.6.1975 towards qualifying service for the purpose of pension under CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 and re-fix his pension and other retiral benefits, if any, accordingly within three months from the date of production of copy of this judgment by the petitioner before respondent No.2 and pay the consequential benefits, if any, to him within the same period, failing which interest @ 9% pa shall also be payable on the amount of arrears, if any. 7. 7. The petition is disposed of in the above terms, as also pending application(s), if any.