ORDER : In the year, 1971, petitioners herein, came to be appointed as Clerks on daily wages basis in the Directorate of Correspondence Courses, Himachal Pradesh University. On 5.11.1971, respondents decided to hold competitive test of the staff engaged on daily wage basis for the purpose of selection as clerks on adhoc basis. Vide communication dated 18.12.1972 (Annexure P-1), respondents took a decision to create posts of clerks to be filled up on adhoc basis and in the same year, respondents made appointment to the aforesaid posts of clerk on adhoc basis. Perusal of aforesaid communication dated 18.12.1972, reveals that respondent University agreed in principal to create the posts as mentioned in the aforesaid annexure and Assistant Registrar was directed to observe necessary codal formalities in that regard. This Communication further reveals that newly created posts were approved in the budget for the year, 1972-73. Since regular vacancies of clerks were available with the respondent-University, it decided to appoint the existing daily wage Clerks on adhoc basis in the regular pay scale of Rs. 110-250. Since University had not framed any R&P rules, it decided to fill up aforesaid vacancies on adhoc basis, however, before making appointments on adhoc basis, petitioners as well as other similarly situate persons were made to appear before the Selection Board constituted under the Chairmanship of Director, Correspondence Courses, as is evident from the communication dated 5.11.1971, whereby decision to hold the competitive test of staff engaged on daily wage basis for the purpose of selection as clerk on adhoc basis in regular pay scale was taken. Though at the time of the appointment of the petitioners as clerk on adhoc basis, no rules for recruitment/promotion and conditions of service for ministerial and administrative services of the university were framed, but as per prevalent practice and procedure, the regular appointments of clerks were being made by the respondent- University on the basis of written test/dictation and interview. However, at subsequent stage, typing test was also introduced in place of dictation test of the candidates having undergraduate qualification. On 6.7.1973, Himachal Pradesh University Ministerial and Administrative Services (Recruitment, Promotions and Certain Condition of Services) Rules, 1973 were framed by the Executive Council of HP University. However, at subsequent stage, typing test was also introduced in place of dictation test of the candidates having undergraduate qualification. On 6.7.1973, Himachal Pradesh University Ministerial and Administrative Services (Recruitment, Promotions and Certain Condition of Services) Rules, 1973 were framed by the Executive Council of HP University. Though respondent-University through Recruitment Branch made appointment to the regularly created posts of the clerks in the University during 1972, but no steps were taken to regularize the adhoc appointment of the clerks in the Directorate of Correspondence Courses despite their having filed representation and litigation. However, subsequently, agreement inter-se Vice Chancellor of the University and representatives of Non-Teaching Employees Associations in August, 1973 came to be effected, which was further ratified by the Executive Council in its meeting on 31.8.1973 (Annexure P-3), but despite there being aforesaid agreement and decision of the Executive Council, respondent University failed to issue orders of regularization of the petitioners for more than five months. However, subsequently, vide order dated 22.1.1974 (Annexure P-4), Vice Chancellor, HP University, regularized the adhoc appointment of the persons including the present petitioners as clerk in the pay scale of Rs.110-4-330/5-100/5- 230/8-250 plus other allowances as admissible under the rules with immediate effect subject to certain conditions. Since some of the petitioners had applied for the post of clerk in the University directly and they appeared in the test and interview held for the purpose of direct recruitment and as such, were appointed as clerk on 15.4.1973, however, names of such petitioners were left out in communication dated 22.1.1974 (Annexure P-4) without any valid and plausible reasons though they were similarly situate to the rest of the petitioners. 2. Being aggrieved and dis-satisfied with the aforesaid decision of the respondent-university, the left out petitioners represented to respondent No.1 through the office of the Director, Correspondence Courses, but such representation of them was rejected without any reason and same was communicated to them vide communication dated 16.7.1975 (Annexure P-5). However, fact remains that all the petitioners were subsequently regularized vide orders dated 14.7.1977 w.e.f. 22.1.1974 as is evident from copy of the office order dated 14.7.1977 placed on record as Annexure P-7. However, fact remains that all the petitioners were subsequently regularized vide orders dated 14.7.1977 w.e.f. 22.1.1974 as is evident from copy of the office order dated 14.7.1977 placed on record as Annexure P-7. Since petitioners herein despite their regularization were not given benefit of the service rendered by them on adhoc basis while counting the seniority, they approached the respondents but they were advised to wait till the time decision is rendered by this Court in CWP No. 137 of 1975, titled Ranjit Singh Thakur v. Himachal Pradesh University and Ors. In the aforesaid case, Ranjit Singh Thakur and others, had also challenged the action of the respondent University, whereby those persons were denied the benefit of adhoc service as clerk in the respondent university. Aforesaid writ petition having been filed by the Ranjit Singh and Ors came to be disposed of on 20.11.1978, on which date court passed following order: “ I am of the view that in the first instance the petitioners were treated as if they were not regularly appointed then on the date of regularization of their adhoc appointments they have got to be regularized from the date of their initial appointments, therefore, their seniority qua the persons who were subsequently appointed on regular basis shall be drawn. The petition, therefore, is allowed for the reasons stated above and the order annexed as Annexure P-7, P-9 and P-11 were accordingly struck down.” 3. Being aggrieved and dis-satisfied with aforesaid judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge of this court, respondent university preferred LPA, which was dismissed on 26.2.1979. After dismissal of the LPA having been filed by the respondent university, petitioners herein filed writ petition bearing CWP No. 265/1979, which however, was withdrawn in view of the order dated 24.7.1985, passed in CWP No. 280/1985, titled Rajender Dev and Ors v. Himachal Pradesh University, with liberty reserved to the petitioners to approach the court again in case they remain aggrieved. 4. Pursuant to the aforesaid judgment, respondent-University vide office memorandum dated 31.1.1986 drawn tentative seniority list of senior clerks as it stood on 31.1.1986 (Annexure P-15). Since the aforesaid tentative seniority list drawn vide order dated 31.1.1986, showed the petitioners herein, below in the seniority list, they again approached this Court by way of CWP(T) No. 5408 of 2020, titled Yashwant Dev Bhardwaj and Ors v. Himachal Pradesh University and Ors. Since the aforesaid tentative seniority list drawn vide order dated 31.1.1986, showed the petitioners herein, below in the seniority list, they again approached this Court by way of CWP(T) No. 5408 of 2020, titled Yashwant Dev Bhardwaj and Ors v. Himachal Pradesh University and Ors. Aforesaid petition having been filed by the petitioners herein was disposed of with direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners in light of judgments dated 28.9.1978 passed by this Court in CWP No.137 of 1975, titled Shri Ranjit singh Thakur and Ors v. The Himachal Pradesh University and Ors and CWP No. 280 of 1985, Rajinder Dev and Ors v. Himachal Pradesh University and Anr, dated 24.7.1985. However, respondent University vide order dated 24.6.2011, rejected the case of the petitioner claiming that petitioners are not similarly situate to the petitioners in CWP No. 280 of 1985 as they were promoted as clerk from the category-D staff on the recommendations of the Recruitment and Promotion Committee and assigned seniority in the cadre of clerks from the date of promotion orders issued on dated 16.7.1977 and not from the date of their initial engagement against Category-C posts. 5. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid order passed by the respondent university, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein for following reliefs: i) That the order dated 24th June, 2011, may very kindly be quashed and set-aside. ii) That the petitioners may very kindly be held validly and regularly appointed to the posts of Clerks/Typists from the date of their initial appointments and in the alternative if they were appointed on adhoc basis initially then their adhoc appointments may be held to be regularized from the date of their adhoc appointments. iii) That after granting the benefit of adhoc service to the petitioners, the respondent University may be directed to redraw the seniority of Clerks and to grant all consequential benefits to the petitioners.” 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused material available on record, this Court finds that there is no dispute interse parties that the petitioners herein were appointed as clerk on daily wage basis in the year, 1971. It is also not in dispute that in the year, 1972, service of all the petitioners were converted from daily wage to adhoc basis after holding the competitive test. It is also not in dispute that in the year, 1972, service of all the petitioners were converted from daily wage to adhoc basis after holding the competitive test. Though at the time of initial appointment of the petitioners, on daily wage basis and thereafter on adhoc basis, no Recruitment and Promotion Rules were in force for appointment of ministerial and administrative staff, but on 6.2.1973, Himachal Pradesh University Ministerial and Administrative Services (Recruitment, Promotions and Certain Condition of Services) Rules, 1973, were framed by the Executive Council. After promulgation of aforesaid R&P rules though agreement had arrived inter-se Vice- Chancellor of the respondent University and representatives of the Non-Teaching Employee Association with regard to taking over of services of administrative staff appointed on daily wage basis and adhoc basis, but such decision was never implemented and as such, petitioners and other similarly situate persons were compelled to approach the appropriate court of law. On 15.4.1973, some of the petitioners appeared in the test and interview held for the purpose of direct recruitment and as such, they were appointment as clerk on the said date. All the petitioners herein were subsequently regularized on 22.1.1974 (Annexure P-4), but since some of the petitioners, who had applied directly for the post in question were not included in the aforesaid list issued on 22.1.1974, they approached the court of law, but fact remains that subsequently, all the petitioners were regularized from the same date i.e. 22.1.1974. 7. Precise grouse of the petitioners, as has been raised in the instant petition, is that since they were regularized w.e.f. 22.1.1974, services rendered by them prior to their regularization ought to have been taken into consideration by the respondent-University while counting their seniority as well as pensionary benefits. Though respondent University in their reply has not disputed factum with regard to regularization of the petitioners w.e.f. 22.1.1974, but its simple claim is that once petitioners at the time of their regularization had agreed that they will have to qualify the typing test with the typing speed of 30WPM on a date which will be intimated by the officer in-charge recruitment HPU and they failed to comply with the aforesaid condition, service rendered by them prior to their regularization cannot be taken into consideration for the purpose of seniority and pensionary benefits. Besides above, another ground, as has been raised by the respondent University, is that since initial appointment of the petitioners as clerk on daily wage basis as well as adhoc basis was dehors the rules, service rendered by them in that capacity cannot be taken into consideration for the purpose of seniority and pensionary benefits. 8. Mr. Surinder Verma, learned counsel representing the respondent-University in support of aforesaid submissions of him placed heavy reliance upon the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case titled Direct Recruit Class II Engg. Officers Association v. State of Maharashtra, 1990 AIR (SC) 1607 and State of West Bengal v. Aghore Nath Dey, 1993 (3) SCC 371 . In the aforesaid case of Direct Recruit Class II Engg. Officers, Hon’ble Apex Court has held as under: “44. To sum up, we hold that: (A) Once an incumbent is appointed to a post according to rule, his seniority has to be counted from the date of his appointment and not according to the date of his confirmation. The corollary of the above rule is that where the initial appointment is only ad hoc and not according to rules and made as a stop-gap arrangement, the officiation in such post cannot be taken into account for considering the seniority. (B) If the initial appointment is not made by following the procedure laid down by the rules but the appointee continues in the post uninterruptedly till the regularisation of his service in accordance with the rules, the period of officiating service will be counted. (C) When appointments are made from more than one source, it is permissible to fix the ratio for recruitment from the different sources, and if rules are framed in this regard they must ordinarily be followed strictly. (D) If it becomes impossible to adhere to the existing quota rule, it should be substituted by an appropriate rule to meet the needs of the situation. In case, however, the quota rule is not followed continuously for a number of years because it was impossible to do so the inference is irresistible that the quota rule had broken down. (D) If it becomes impossible to adhere to the existing quota rule, it should be substituted by an appropriate rule to meet the needs of the situation. In case, however, the quota rule is not followed continuously for a number of years because it was impossible to do so the inference is irresistible that the quota rule had broken down. (E) Where the quota rule has broken down and the appointments are made from one source in excess of the quota, but are made after following the procedure prescribed by the rules for the appointment, the appointees should not be pushed down below the appointees from the other source inducted in the service at a later date. (F) Where the rules permit the authorities to relax the provisions relating to the quota, ordinarily a presumption should be raised that there was such relaxation when there is a deviation from the quota rule. (G) The quota for recruitment from the different sources may be prescribed by executive instructions, if the rules are silent on the subject. (H) If the quota rule is prescribed by an executive instruction, and is not followed continuously for a number of years, the inference is that the executive instruction has ceased to remain operative. (I) The posts held by the permanent Deputy Engineers as well as the officiating Deputy Engineers under the State of Maharashtra belonged to the single cadre of Deputy Engineers. (J) The decision dealing with important questions concerning a particular service given after careful consideration should be respected rather than scrutinised for finding out any possible error. It is not in the interest of Service to unsettle a settled position. With respect to Writ Petition No. 1327 of 1982, we further hold: (K) That a dispute raised by an application under article 32 of the Constitution must be held to be barred by principles of res judicata including the rule of constructive res judicata if the same has been earlier decided by a competent court by a judgment which became final. In view of the above and the other findings recorded earlier, we do not find any merit in any of the civil appeals, writ petitions and special leave petitions which are accordingly dismissed. There will be, however, no order as to costs.” 9. Mr. In view of the above and the other findings recorded earlier, we do not find any merit in any of the civil appeals, writ petitions and special leave petitions which are accordingly dismissed. There will be, however, no order as to costs.” 9. Mr. Surinder Verma, while referring to the aforesaid para of the judgment contended that once initial appointment of the petitioners to a post in question was not in accordance with rules, their seniority is not to be counted from the date of the initial appointment, rather from the date of their regularization. However having carefully perused aforesaid law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, this court though finds no reason to quarrel with the aforesaid proposition of law that .once an incumbent is appointed to the post according to rule, his seniority has to be counted from the date of his appointment and not from the date of his confirmation. But in the case at hand, it is not in dispute that at the time of initial appointment of the petitioners as clerk on daily wage basis and subsequently, on adhoc basis, no Recruitment and Promotion Rules stood framed for the appointment to the post in question. R&P rules qua the post in question only came into existence in the year, 1973, by which time, services of the petitioners stood converted from daily wage to adhoc basis. 10. Leaving everything aside, this Court is of the view that aforesaid plea is otherwise not available with respondent university for the reason that if stand of the university was that initial appointment of the petitioners was not in consonance with the rules, where was the occasion to the regularize the services of the petitioners against the post in question. Once university regularized the services of the petitioners, there is a presumption that initial appointment of the petitioners was in accordance with the rules. Though in the case at hand, there is no dispute that no rules were available at the time of the initial appointments of the petitioners, but record clearly reveals that at the time of the initial appointments of the petitioners, they were subjected to competitive test held by the Committee specially constituted for that purpose. Though in the case at hand, there is no dispute that no rules were available at the time of the initial appointments of the petitioners, but record clearly reveals that at the time of the initial appointments of the petitioners, they were subjected to competitive test held by the Committee specially constituted for that purpose. No doubt, office order dated 22.1.1974 Annexure P4, whereby services of the some of the petitioners came to be regularized suggests that petitioners as well as other similarly situated persons, whose services were regularized, were to qualify typing test in the month of July, 1974, failing which their services were to be terminated without any notice, however, in the case at hand, there is nothing on record suggestive of the fact that the petitioners failed to qualify the typing test and as such, their services were terminated. Rather record reveals that after issuance of the office order dated 22.1.1974, respondent university never insisted upon the persons regularized vide aforesaid order to pass the typing test, rather they all kept on serving the respondent-university, being regular employees till their retirement/superannuation. Though perusal of Annexure R-4 annexed with the reply filed by respondents No. 1 and 2 suggests that petitioners were subjected to typing test on 15.4.1973, and only one petitioner could qualify the same, but yet despite petitioners having not cleared typing test held on 15.4.1973 while they were working on adhoc basis, respondent university proceeded to pass order dated 22.1.1974 Annexure P-4, regularizing therein services of the petitioners as clerk in the respondent university. 11. At this stage, Mr. Surinder Verma, learned counsel for respondent-University vehemently argued that very initial appointment made by the Directorate of Correspondence Courses was dehors the rules because at that time, none of the petitioners were qualified and as such, they cannot be permitted to claim at this stage benefit of service rendered by them in the capacity of daily wages and adhoc basis. However, this Court finds no merit in the aforesaid submission of Mr. Verma, because the question as to whether initial appointment of the petitioners as daily wagers and subsequently, on adhoc basis was dehors the rules or not, has no relevance as far as present lis is concerned for the reason that respondent university despite having known aforesaid fact itself regularized the services of the petitioners in the year 1974. Verma, because the question as to whether initial appointment of the petitioners as daily wagers and subsequently, on adhoc basis was dehors the rules or not, has no relevance as far as present lis is concerned for the reason that respondent university despite having known aforesaid fact itself regularized the services of the petitioners in the year 1974. Once respondent university ignoring the factum with regard to petitioners having not possessed essential qualification regularized them in the year, 1974, it cannot be permitted to raise such plea at this belated stage when all the petitioners after having rendered number of years in service have superannuated. 12. Now only question, which needs to be determined in the case at hand is that “whether service rendered by the petitioners prior to regularization is required to be taken into consideration for the purpose of seniority, pensionary benefits as well as other service benefits.” 13. Similar question, as ha s been formulated by this Court for determination, has already been gone into and decided by coordinate bench of this Court on 26.12.2019 in case titled Smt. Sheela Devi v. State of HP and Ors in CWPOA No. 195 of 2019 (further followed by this Court vide judgment dated 1.1.2020 in CWP No. 3267 of 2019 titled Ram Krishan Sharma v. The Accountant General (A&E) HP and Ors), wherein it has been concluded that services rendered prior to regularization in any capacity, be it work-charged employees, contingency paid fund employees or non-pensionable establishment have to be counted towards qualifying service even if such service is not preceded by temporary or regular appointment in a pensionable establishment. Relevant paras of Sheela Devi’s case (supra) read as under: “2. The late husband of the petitioner was appointed as Ayurvedic doctor on contract basis in temporary capacity in the year 1999, however, his services were thereafter regularised in the year 2009 and he shortly thereafter expired on 23.01.2011. The request made by the applicant for release of pension has been turned down by the respondents vide order dated 18.6.2018 on the ground that the services rendered by the husband of the applicant on contract basis cannot be counted for pensionary benefits under CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 (for short ‘Pension Rules’) as the same are applicable only to regular government employees appointed in the pensionable establishments in the Government departments on or before 14.05.2003. The Government employees appointed in non-pensionable establishments are covered under the Contributory Provident Fund Rules, 1962. In terms of rule 2 of the Pension Rules, these rules are applicable to the Government employees appointed substantively to civil services and posts in Government departments which are borne on pensionable establishments appointed on or before 14.05.2003. Further, as per rule 2 (g) of the Pension Rules, these Rules are not applicable to the persons employed on contract except when the contract provides otherwise. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case carefully. 4. Rule 17 of the Central Civil Services (Pension)Rules, 1972 reads as under: 17. Counting of service on contract - “(1) A person who is initially engaged by the Government on a contract for a specified period and is subsequently appointed to the same or another post in a substantive capacity in a pensionable establishment without interruption of duty, may opt either:- (a) to retain the Government contribution in the Contributory Provident Fund with interest thereon including any other compensation for that service ; or (b) to agree to refund to the Government the monetary benefits referred to in Clause (a) or to forgo the same if they have not been paid to him and count in lieu thereof the service for which the aforesaid monetary benefits may have been payable. (2) The option under sub-rule (1) shall be communicated to the Head of Office under intimation to the Accounts Officer within a period of three months from the date of issue of the order of permanent transfer to pensionable service, or if the Government servant is on leave on that day, within three months of his return from leave, whichever is later. (3). If no communication is received by the Head of Office within the period referred to in sub-rule (2), the Government servant shall be deemed to have opted for the retention of the monetary benefits payable or paid to him on account of service rendered on contract.” 5. (3). If no communication is received by the Head of Office within the period referred to in sub-rule (2), the Government servant shall be deemed to have opted for the retention of the monetary benefits payable or paid to him on account of service rendered on contract.” 5. It is clear from the plain language employed in rule 17 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 that if a person is initially engaged by the Government on contract for a specified period and is subsequently appointed to the same or another post in a sub-stantiative capacity in a pensionable establishment without interruption of duty, he may opt either to retain the Government contribution in the Contributory Provident Fund with interest thereon including any other compensation for that service or to agree to refund to the Government the monetary benefit referred to in clause or to forgo the same if they have not been paid to him and count in lieu thereof the service for which the aforesaid monetary benefits may have been payable. 6. We may at this stage refer to a decision rendered by learned Single Judge of this Court in Paras Ram vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and another, Latest HLJ 2009 (HP) 887, wherein it was laid down that if adhoc service is followed by regular service in the same post, the said service can be counted for the purpose of increments. 7. Further a Division Bench of this Court in LPA No. 36 of 2010 titled Sita Ram vs. State of H.P. and others, decided on 15.7.2010 after placing reliance in Paras Ram’s case (supra) held that “It is also settled principle of law that any service that is counted for the purpose of increment, will count for pension also. To that extent the appellant is justified in making submission that period may be treated as qualifying service for the purpose of pension also.” 8. A co-ordinate Bench of this Court (Coram: Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. and Mr. Justice Sureshwar Thakur, J.) while dealing with an identical issue in CWP No. 5400 of 2014 titled Veena Devi Vs. To that extent the appellant is justified in making submission that period may be treated as qualifying service for the purpose of pension also.” 8. A co-ordinate Bench of this Court (Coram: Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. and Mr. Justice Sureshwar Thakur, J.) while dealing with an identical issue in CWP No. 5400 of 2014 titled Veena Devi Vs. Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board and another, decided on 21.11.2014 and after interpreting the provisions of Rule 17, directed the respondents therein to count the services of the petitioner therein on contract basis as Clerk/Typist with effect from 16.11.1988 to 21.3.2009 for the purpose of qualifying service for pensionary benefits. 9. Likewise, the same Bench issued similar directions in CWP No. 8953 of 2013 titled Joga Singh and others vs. State of H.P. and others and connected matter, decided on 15.6.2015 by directing the period of service rendered on contract basis as qualifying service for the purpose of pension under the Pension Rules. 10. Another Co-ordinate Bench of this Court {Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surya Kant, Chief Justice (as his Lordship then was) and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, J.} in CWP No. 2384 of 2018 titled State of Himachal Pradesh and others vs. Matwar Singh and another, decided on 18.12.2018, held that work charge status followed by regular appointment has to be counted as a component of qualifying service for the purpose of pension and other retiral benefits. Therefore, the executive instructions, if any, issued by the Finance Department to the contrary, are liable to be ignored/ struck down, in light of the decisions rendered in CWP No. 6167 of 2012, titled Sukru Ram vs. State of H.P. and others, decided on 6th March, 2013 and a Full Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court in Kesar Chand vs. State of Punjab through the Secretary PWD (B&R) Chandigarh and others, (1988) 94 (2) PLR 223, the relevant para-3 of the judgment reads as under: “3. It is by now well settled that the work charge status followed by regular appointment has to be counted as a component of qualifying service for the purpose of pension and other retiral benefits. It is by now well settled that the work charge status followed by regular appointment has to be counted as a component of qualifying service for the purpose of pension and other retiral benefits. Executive instructions, if any, issued by the Finance Department to the contrary, are liable to be ignored/ struck down, in light of view taken by this Court in CWP No. 6167 of 2012, titled Sukru Ram vs. State of H.P. and others, decided on 6th March, 2013. A Full Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court in Kesar Chand vs. State of Punjab through the Secretary PWD (B&R) Chandigarh and others, (1988) 94 (2) PLR 223, also dealt with an identical issue where Rule 3.17 (ii) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules excluded the work charge service for the purpose of qualifying service. Setting aside the said Rule being violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, it was held that the work charge service followed by regular appointment will count towards qualifying service for the purpose of pension and other retiral benefits. The aforesaid view was also confirmed by the Hon’ble Apex Court.” 11. As regards the counting of work period rendered on work charged basis followed by regular appointment, the issue is otherwise no longer res integra in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Punjab State Electricity Board vs. Narata Singh AIR 2010 SC 1467 , Habib Khan vs. The State of Uttarakhand (Civil Appeal No. 10806 of 2017) decided on 23.8.2017 and recent decision rendered by three Judges of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Prem Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others AIR 2019 SC 4390 . 12. It is by now settled law that the work-charge status followed by regular appointment has to be counted as a component of qualifying service for the purpose of pension and other retiral benefits and even adhoc service in terms of Paras Ram’s case (supra) followed by regular service in the same post has to be counted for the purpose of increments and in turn for pension as held by the Division Bench of this Court in LPA No. 36 of 2010 titled Sita Ram’s case (supra), can the benefit be denied to the employees appointed on contract basis followed by regular appointment. 12. 12. Even though the issue in question is squarely covered by the judgments rendered by this Court in Veena Devi and Joga Singh cases (supra). However, we may at this stage make note of an unreported decision of the Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Rai Singh and another vs. Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra, C.W.P. No.2246 of 2008, decided on August 18, 2008 wherein the Court after taking into consideration the Full Bench judgment in Kesar Chand case (supra) held that once the employees have been regularised and are now held entitled to pension by counting adhoc service, exclusion of service “on contract basis” will be discriminatory. It was further held that appointment on contract basis is a type of adhoc service. Mere fact that nominal breaks are given or lesser pay is given or increments are not given, is no ground to treat the said service differently. Beneficial provision for pension having been extended to adhoc employees, denial of the said benefit to employees working on contract basis, who also stand on same footing as employees appointed on adhoc basis cannot be held to be having any rational basis and the judgment in Kesar Chand (supra) is fully applicable. It shall be apposite to refer to the necessary observations as contained in paras 4 to 8 of the judgment, which read as under: “4. Learned counsel for the petitioners relies upon a Full Bench judgment of this Court in Kesar Chand v. State of Punjab and others, 1988 (2) PLR 223, wherein validity of Rule 3.17 (ii) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume II was considered, which provided for temporary or officiating service followed by regularization to be counted as qualifying service but excluded period of service in work charge establishment. It was held that if temporary or officiating service was to be counted towards qualifying service, it was illogical that period of service in a work charge establishment was not counted. 6. As held in Kesar Chand (supra), pension is not a bounty and is for the service rendered. It is a social welfare measure to meet hardship in the old age. The employees can certainly be classified on rational basis for the purpose of grant or denial of pension. A cut off date can also be fixed unless the same is arbitrary or discriminatory. It is a social welfare measure to meet hardship in the old age. The employees can certainly be classified on rational basis for the purpose of grant or denial of pension. A cut off date can also be fixed unless the same is arbitrary or discriminatory. In absence of valid classification, discriminatory treatment is not permissible. 7. Once the employees have been regularised and are held entitled to pension by counting adhoc service, exclusion of service “on contract basis” will be discriminatory. Appointment on contract basis is a type of adhoc service. Mere fact that nominal breaks are given or lesser pay is given or increments are not given, is no ground to treat the said service differently. Beneficial provision for pension having been extended to adhoc employees, denial of the said benefit to employees working on contract basis, who also stand on same footing as employees appointed on adhoc basis cannot be held to be having any rational basis. Judgment of this Court in Kesar Chand (supra) is fully applicable. 8. Accordingly, we allow this writ petition and declare that the contractual employees who have rendered continuous service (ignoring nominal breaks) followed by regularization in a pensionable establishment, will be entitled to be treated at par with adhoc employees in such establishment, for counting their qualifying service for pension.” 13. Adverting to the facts of the case, we have no difficulty in concluding that even though the appointment of the husband of the petitioner was contractual but that was in no manner qualitative different from the regular employees and once there was need for doctors in the State as is evident from the fact that the services of the husband of the petitioner ultimately stood regularised, then it was unfair on the part of the State Government to take work from the employee on contract basis. They ought to have resorted to an appointment on regular basis. 14. The taking of work on contractual basis for long amounts to adopting the exploitative device. Later on, though the services of the husband of the petitioner as observed above, were regularised. However, the period spent by him on contractual basis, has not been counted towards the qualifying service. They ought to have resorted to an appointment on regular basis. 14. The taking of work on contractual basis for long amounts to adopting the exploitative device. Later on, though the services of the husband of the petitioner as observed above, were regularised. However, the period spent by him on contractual basis, has not been counted towards the qualifying service. Thus, the respondents have not only deprived the deceased husband of the petitioner from the due emoluments during the period he served on less salary on contractual basis but he was also deprived of counting of the period for pensionary benefits. 15. The State has been benefitted by the services rendered by the deceased husband of the petitioner in the heydays of his life on less salary on contractual basis. Therefore, there is no rhyme or reason not to count the contract period in case it has been rendered before regularization. If same is denied, it would be highly unjust, impermissible and irrational to deprive such employees benefit of the qualifying service. 16. The classification cannot be done on the irrational basis and when respondents are themselves counting period spent in such service, it would be highly discriminatory not to count the service on the basis of flimsy classification. As it would rather be unjust, illegal, impermissible to make the aforesaid classification under the Pension Rules and to make Rule valid and non-discriminatory, the same will have to be read down and it has to be held that services rendered even prior to regularisation in the capacity of work-charged employees, contract employees, contingency paid fund employees or non-pensionable establishment shall be counted towards the qualifying service even if such service is not preceded by temporary or regular appointment in a pensionable establishment. 17. In taking this view, we are fortified by the judgment rendered in Prem Singh’s case (supra), more particularly observations made in paras 28 to 34 of the judgment, which read as under: “28. 17. In taking this view, we are fortified by the judgment rendered in Prem Singh’s case (supra), more particularly observations made in paras 28 to 34 of the judgment, which read as under: “28. The submission has been urged on behalf of the State of Uttar Pradesh to differentiate the case between work-charged employees and regular employees on the ground that due procedure is not followed for appointment of work charged employees, they do not have that much work pressure, they are unequal and cannot be treated equally, work- charged employees form a totally different class, their work is materially and qualitatively different, there cannot be any clubbing of the services of the work-charged employees with the regular service and vice versa, if a work-charged employee is treated as in the regular service it will dilute the basic concept of giving incentive and reward to a permanent and responsible regular employee. 29. We are not impressed by the aforesaid submissions. The appointment of the work-charged employee in question had been made on monthly salary and they were required to cross the efficiency bar also. How their services are qualitatively different from regular employees? No material indicating qualitative difference has been pointed out except making bald statement. The appointment was not made for a particular project which is the basic concept of the work charged employees. Rather, the very concept of work-charged employment has been misused by offering the employment on exploitative terms for the work which is regular and perennial in nature. The work-charged employees 13 had been subjected to transfer from one place to another like regular employees as apparent from documents placed on record. In Narain Dutt Sharma & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (CA No. 2019 @ SLP (C) No.5775 of 2018) the appellants were allowed to cross efficiency bar, after ‘8’ years of continuous service, even during the period of work-charged services. Narain Dutt Sharma, the appellant, was appointed as a work-charged employee as Gej Mapak w.e.f 15.9.1978. Payment used to be made monthly but the appointment was made in the pay scale of Rs.200- 320. Initially, he was appointed in the year 1978 on a fixed monthly salary of Rs.205 per month. Narain Dutt Sharma, the appellant, was appointed as a work-charged employee as Gej Mapak w.e.f 15.9.1978. Payment used to be made monthly but the appointment was made in the pay scale of Rs.200- 320. Initially, he was appointed in the year 1978 on a fixed monthly salary of Rs.205 per month. They were allowed to cross efficiency bar also as the benefit of pay scale was granted to them during the period they served as work-charged employees they served for three to four decades and later on services have been regularized time to time by different orders. However, the services of some of the appellants in few petitions/ appeals have not been regularized even though they had served for several decades and ultimately reached the age of superannuation. 30. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it was unfair on the part of the State Government and its officials to take work from the employees on the work-charged basis. They ought to have resorted to an appointment on regular basis. The taking of work on the work- charged basis for long amounts to adopting the exploitative device. Later on, though their services have been regularized. However, the period spent by them in the work-charged establishment has not been counted towards the qualifying service. Thus, they have not only been deprived of their due emoluments during the period they served on less salary in work charged establishment but have also been deprived of counting of the 14 period for pensionary benefits as if no services had been rendered by them. The State has been benefitted by the services rendered by them in the heydays of their life on less salary in workcharged establishment. 31. In view of the note appended to Rule 3(8) of the 1961 Rules, there is a provision to count service spent on work charged, contingencies or non pensionable service, in case, a person has rendered such service in a given between period of two temporary appointments in the pensionable establishment or has rendered such service in the interregnum two periods of temporary and permanent employment. The workcharged service can be counted as qualifying service for pension in the aforesaid exigencies. 32. The question arises whether the imposition of rider that such service to be counted has to be rendered in-between two spells of temporary or temporary and permanent service is legal and proper. The workcharged service can be counted as qualifying service for pension in the aforesaid exigencies. 32. The question arises whether the imposition of rider that such service to be counted has to be rendered in-between two spells of temporary or temporary and permanent service is legal and proper. We find that once regularization had been made on vacant posts, though the employee had not served prior to that on temporary basis, considering the nature of appointment, though it was not a regular appointment it was made on monthly salary and thereafter in the pay scale of work-charged establishment the efficiency bar was permitted to be crossed. It would be highly discriminatory and irrational because of the rider contained in Note to Rule 3(8) of 1961 Rules, not to count such service particularly, when it can be counted, in case such service is sandwiched between two temporary or in between temporary and permanent services. There is no rhyme or reason not to count the service of workcharged period in case it has been rendered before regularisation. In our opinion, an impermissible classification has been made under Rule 3(8). It would be highly unjust, impermissible and irrational to deprive such employees benefit of the qualifying service. Service of work-charged period remains the same for all the employees, once it is to be counted for one class, it has to be counted for all to prevent discrimination. The classification cannot be done on the irrational basis and when respondents are themselves counting period spent in such service, it would be highly discriminatory not to count the service on the basis of flimsy classification. The rider put on that work-charged service should have preceded by temporary capacity is discriminatory and irrational and creates an impermissible classification. 33. As it would be unjust, illegal and impermissible to make aforesaid classification to make the Rule 3(8) valid and non discriminatory, we have to read down the provisions of Rule 3(8) and hold that services rendered even prior to regularisation in the capacity of work-charged employees, contingency paid fund employees or non- pensionable establishment shall also be counted towards the qualifying service even if such service is not preceded by temporary or regular appointment in a pensionable establishment. 34. 34. In view of the note appended to Rule 3(8), which we have read down, the provision contained in Regulation 370 of the Civil Services Regulations has to be struck down as also the instructions contained in Para 669 of the Financial Handbook.” 18. It would be clearly evident from the aforesaid judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the services rendered prior to regularisation in any capacity be it work-charged employees, contingency paid fund employees or nonpensionable establishment has to be counted towards qualifying service even if such service is not preceded by temporary or regular appointment in a pensionable establishment. 19. Once that be so, obviously no discrimination can be made qua the employees, who rendered services prior to regularisation in the capacity of contractual employees and were regularised only because they had put in the requisite number of years of service on contractual basis like their counterparts who had rendered services in the capacity of work charged employees, contingency paid fund employees or non-pensionable establishment, of course, for that matter even on adhoc basis.” 14. Reliance is also placed upon judgment 14.9.2010 dated passed by this Court in CWP(T) No. 6785 of 2008 titled Narender Singh Naik v. State of HP and Ors (further upheld by the Division Bench of this court in LPA No. 271 of 2011), wherein respondents were directed to consider the case of the applicant for counting the period he has worked on contract basis till regularization with all consequential benefits in view of the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case titled Direct Recruit Class II Engineering Officers Association v. State of Maharashtra and Ors (1990) 2 SCC 715 . 15. Consequently, in view of the aforesaid detailed discussion as well as law taken note herein above, this court finds merit in the present petition and as such, same is allowed and order dated 24.6.2011 is quashed and set-aside and respondents are directed to count the services of the petitioners rendered prior to their regularization for the purpose of seniority and other service benefits. Needful in terms of instant judgment shall be done within six weeks, failing which respondents shall be further liable to pay interest @ 6% per annum. In the aforesaid terms, present petition is disposed of alongwith pending applications, if any.