ORDER : The writ petitioner became conferred the aspired work charge status in the year 2002. The afore factum finds reflection in Annexure P-1. He became allotted General Provident Fund (for short “GPF”) number by the Senior Deputy Accountant General, H.P. However, through Annexure P-2, the writ petitioner was asked to switch over to Contributory Pension Scheme (for short “CPF”), as per rules of 2006, on the ground that his regular appointment took place after May, 2003. Consequently, the writ petitioner becomes aggrieved by the making of Annexure P-2, and, through the institution of the instant writ petition before this Court, he has sought the quashing of Annexure P-2. Moreover, he has also prayed for a mandamus being issued upon the respondent concerned, to, permit him to contribute to GPF. 2. Respondents No.1 and 2, in their reply meted to the writ petition, strived to validate Annexure P-2 through Annexure R-1 as becomes appended with the reply. A perusal of Annexure R-1 appended to their reply, Annexure whereof is a notification issued on 17.8.2006, though does enclose, that vis-a-vis, all appointments made by the Government of Himachal Pradesh on or after 15.5.2003, rather barring the appointees concerned, from drawing the benefits of Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972. Moreover, it is also spelt therein, that the appointees concerned whose appointments occur after 15.5.2003, would draw pension co-equivalent, to their contribution to the apposite pension fund. 3. However, a reading of Annexure R-1, though prima-facie does not sustain, the reply filed on affidavit filed by respondents No.1 and 2, that vis-à-vis, appointments made after 15.5.2003, the apposite appointees being barred to subscribe to GPF, and, rather all the post retiral benefits becoming governed by Annexure R-1. However, even if assumingly on a deep reading of Annexure R-1, the afore submission is prima-facie incorrect. 4. Nonetheless, a reading of Rule 4 of General Provident Fund (CS) Rules (for short “GPF Rules”), Rule whereof stands extracted hereinafter, makes abundant and clear echoings, that all temporary government servants after a continuous, service of one year, shall become eligible to subscribe to the funds concerned. Moreover, NOTE-3 appended there-under also made be speakings, that the temporary government servants, who have been appointed against regular vacancies, and, who are likely to complete more than a period of one year, may subscribe to GPF any time before completion of one year service. “4. Moreover, NOTE-3 appended there-under also made be speakings, that the temporary government servants, who have been appointed against regular vacancies, and, who are likely to complete more than a period of one year, may subscribe to GPF any time before completion of one year service. “4. Conditions of eligibility All temporary Government servants after a continuous service of one year, all re-employed pensioners (other than those eligible for admission to the Contributory Provident Fund) and all permanent Government Servants shall subscribe to the Fund: Provided that no such servant as has been required or permitted to subscribe to contributory Provident Fund shall be eligible to join or continue as a subscriber to the Fund, while he retains his right to sub-scribe to such a Fund: Provided further that a temporary Government servant, who is borne on an establishment or factory to which the provisions of Employees’ Provident Funds Scheme, 1952, framed under the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (19 of 1952) would apply or would have applied but for the exemption granted under section 17 of the said Act, shall subscribe to the General Provident Fund if he has completed six months’ continuous service or has actually worked for not less than 120 days during a period of six months or less in such establishment or factor or in any other establishment or factory to which the said Act applies, under the same employer or partly in one and partly in the other. [provided also that nothing contained in these rules shall apply to Government servant appointed on or after the 1st day of January, 2004] EXPLANATION- For the purposes of this rule “continuous service” shall have the same meaning assigned to it in the Employees’ Provident Funds Scheme, 1952, and the period of work for 120 days shall be computed in the manner specified in the said scheme and shall be certified by the employer. NOTE-1-Apprentices and Probationers shall be treated as temporary Government servants for the purpose of this rule. NOTE-2 A temporary Government servant who completes one year of continuous service during the middle of a month shall subscribe to the Fund from the subsequent month. NOTE-1-Apprentices and Probationers shall be treated as temporary Government servants for the purpose of this rule. NOTE-2 A temporary Government servant who completes one year of continuous service during the middle of a month shall subscribe to the Fund from the subsequent month. NOTE-3 -Temporary Government servants (including Apprentices and Probationers) who have been appointed against regular vacancies and are likely to continue for more than a year may subscribe to the General Provident Fund any time before completion of one year’s service.” 5. From a reading of Rule 4 of GPF Rules, and, wherethrough temporary government servants rendering continuous service, for a period of one year, and, who are appointed against regular vacancies, become declared to be eligible, to, seek application qua them of the provisions cast in GPF Rules, and, also become permitted to make subscription to GPF, though hence prima-facie the writ claim would become vindicated. However, yet it has to be gauged whether the apposite work charge status, as became conferred upon the writ petitioner, in the year 2002, makes him eligible, to, continue to make subscriptions to the GPF, and, also whether Annexure P-2 can either come to be validated or invalidated. 6. The appointment of the government servant, even though on a temporary basis, is mandated in NOTE-3 occurring underneath, Rule 4 of GPF Rules, to be hence against a regular vacancy. However, upon the workman being conferred with a work charge status, he would, not be rendering services against a regular vacancy, and rather would serve against a regular substantive vacancy, only when his services become regularized against the substantive vacancy concerned. Consequently, since the conferment of work charge status, upon the workman, occurred in the year 2002, and, when at the afore stage, he was rendering services not against a regular vacancy, and, rather only upon his regularization in service, he occupied a substantive vacancy. Consequently, since the conferment of work charge status, upon the workman, occurred in the year 2002, and, when at the afore stage, he was rendering services not against a regular vacancy, and, rather only upon his regularization in service, he occupied a substantive vacancy. Therefore, the mere conferment of a work charge status, vis-à-vis, the petitioner in the year 2002, and, it surviving upto his regularization in service after 15.5.2003, would not make the afore post, to be co- equivalent to a substantive post, as during the afore spell, his salary became drawn from sub head “works”, and, not from the head appertaining to “salary”, as, rather becomes disbursable therefrom, only to an incumbent working against a regular vacancy, nor, obviously he would become entitled to claim the benefits of eligibility (supra) as occurs in Rule 4 of GPF Rules. As a sequel, also the withdrawal of GPF subscription rather through Annexure P- 2, though earlier made, becomes valid and legally worthy. 7. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner also contended, on anvil of definition of “Temporary Post” occurring in Fundamental Rules 9 (30), definition whereof stands extracted hereinafter, that since the pay drawn by the writ petitioner, carries a definite rate of pay sanctioned for a limited period of time, thereupon, the working of the writ petitioner, on a work charge establishment, under the respondents, does make him fall hence within the definition of “Temporary Post”, as occurs, in Fundamental Rules 9 (30). “(30) Temporary post means a post carrying a definite rate of pay sanctioned for a limited time.” 8. However, even the afore submission cannot be accepted, by this Court, as the word “Post” as occurs in Fundamental Rules 9 (30), cannot carry any signification other than it being relatable to a substantive vacancy. Any other interpretation to the word “Post” as occurs in Fundamental Rules 9 (30), would be completely antithetical to the signification (supra), as becomes ascribed to the relevant NOTE-3 occurring underneath Rule 4 of GPF Rules, and, wherein a prescription occurs, that a government servant though temporarily employed, becomes entitled to draw the benefits of GPF Rules, only upon, his temporary employment being against a regular vacancy. Therefore, the word “post” occurring in Fundamental Rules 9 (30) becomes amenable to be meted a signification, qua its appertaining to a substantive post or a substantive vacancy. Therefore, the word “post” occurring in Fundamental Rules 9 (30) becomes amenable to be meted a signification, qua its appertaining to a substantive post or a substantive vacancy. Consequently, the afore rendered work on a work charge establishment, is not, for reasons (supra) rather amenable to be treated co-equal with work performed against any substantive post or against any substantive vacancy. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner, though has not claimed in the writ petition, hence for pension qua the petitioner being determinable, on anvil of conferment upon him, of a work charge status, yet he has argued that application of Rule 2 of Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 (For short CCS (Pension) Rules), be made qua the petitioner. In making the afore submission, he makes dependence, upon, Rule 2 of CCS (Pension) Rules, Rule whereof stands extracted hereinafter:- “2. Application Save as otherwise provided in these rules, [these rules shall apply to Government servants appointed on or before the 31st Day of December, 2003] including civilian Government servants in the Defence Services, appointed substantively to civil services and posts in connection with affairs of the Union which are borne on pensionable establishments, but shall not apply to- (a) Railway servants’ (b) Persons in casual and daily-rated employment; (c) Persons paid from contingencies; (d) Persons entitled to the benefit of a Contributory Provident Fund; (e) Members of All India Services; (f) Persons locally recruited for service in diplomatic, consular or other Indian establishments in foreign countries; (g) Persons employed on contract except when the contract provides otherwise; and (h) Persons whose terms and conditions of service are regulated by or under the provisions of the Constitution or any other law for the time being in force” 10. While making the afore submission, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has depended upon the specific exclusion of categories of employees as borne therein, and, submits that since the apposite exclusion, as, appertaining to inapplicability of CCS (Pension) Rules, rather is exhaustive, and ad nauseam, and, when the workmen/employees concerned, who work against a work charge establishment, do not, occur therein. Therefore, for want of exclusion of work charge employees, in Rule 2 of CCS (Pension) Rules, hence makes them amenable to be valid recipients of pension, as the prior thereto application clause, is rather workable, vis-à-vis, them. Therefore, for want of exclusion of work charge employees, in Rule 2 of CCS (Pension) Rules, hence makes them amenable to be valid recipients of pension, as the prior thereto application clause, is rather workable, vis-à-vis, them. However, even the afore made submission, cannot be accepted, as the mere non-occurrence of a work charge workman, in the relevant exclusion clause, vis-à-vis, the apposite application clause, rather per-se would not render work done on a work charge establishment, hence by a work charge workmen, to fall within the realm of the relevant application clause, as, carried in Rule 2 (supra). The imperative necessity for availments of benefits thereof, by the work charge employees, is comprised in their substantively working against regular posts. Since, as afore-stated the writ petitioner rendered work not against any substantive post concerned, rather during the period of his working as a work charge employee in the apposite work charge establishment, given his drawing wages from the sub head “works”, hence imperatively contradistinct to the head wherefrom the salaries of incumbents working against substantive post rather become drawn, and, disbursed. Therefore, he is not entitled to avail the benefits of rule 2 (supra). Moreover, since the notification carried in Annexure R-1, communicates that all appointments made on or after 15.5.2003 hence against every post in the State of Himachal Pradesh, rendering the apposite appointees, for, not becoming valid recipients of CCS (pension) Rules. Therefore, the petitioner becomes rather entitled to all post retiral benefits being purveyed to them in the mode enshrined in Annexure R-1. Consequently, he is entitled to all post retiral benefits from the funds whereto which he makes subscriptions. Therefore, this Court finds no merit in the petition, and, the same is accordingly dismissed. All pending application stand disposed of accordingly.