JUDGMENT : 1. The writ petitioner became conferred the status of a work charged employee, under the respondents in the year 2000. Subsequently thereto, he became regularised, as, a Chowkidar under the respondents in the year 2007. 2. Since, vis-a-vis, the entrants into regular service after May, 2003, the post retiral benefits becomes governed by the Himachal Pradesh Civil Services Contributory Pension Rules, 2006. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner, seeks the making of a mandamus, upon the respondents to grant him, the benefit of CCS Pension Rules, 1972. However, for the reasons to be assigned hereinafter, the afore claimed mandamus is declined. 3. This Court, in a binding, and, conclusive verdict made upon CWP No. 180 of 2001, decided on 31.05.2012, titled as State of H.P. & Anr. vs. Ram Lal and others, had formulated the hereinafter extracted question of law, for determination being made thereon:- “Whether the services rendered on daily waged basis by the employees before their regularization/grant of work charged status qre to be taken into consideration for the purpose of counting their qualifying service for grant of pension under the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, and, if so, to what extent? Therein it has been held, that the period of rendition of services by the employees either in a daily wage capacity or in a work charged capacity, not making them eligible for the purpose of grant of pension, under, the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, has not been able to place on record any verdict, as made by the Hon'ble Apex Court, upon, any apposite SLP, as became preferred therebefore, and, wherethrough, the verdict supra became annulled. Reiteratedly, hence the verdict supra has acquired the fullest conclusive and binding effect. Moreover, this Court, had through its verdict made, on 20th August, 2021, upon, CWPOA No. 6294 of 2019, titled as Duni Chand vs. State of H.P. & Ors., had after making an adnauseam interpretation of Rule 4 of the General Provident Fund (CS) Rules, and, also upon, its ascribing, the, correct meaning to the coinage “temporary post”, hence occurring in Fundamental Rules 9 (30), besides upon its making an interpretation of Rule 2 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, had made, their respective interpretation(s), in the hereinafter extracted manner:- “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 bespeaking, that 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-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, where through 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 him 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-3 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, they were rendering services not against a regular vacancy, and, rather only upon their regularization in service, they 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, they were rendering services not against a regular vacancy, and, rather only upon their regularization in service, they 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 their 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, their 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 they 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-3, though earlier made, becomes valid and legally worthy. 7. However, the learned counsel for the petitioners 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 petitioners, carries a definite rate of pay sanctioned for a limited period of time, thereupon, the working of the writ petitioners, 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 petitioners, though has not claimed in the writ petition, hence for pension qua the petitioners 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 petitioners. 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 petitioners, 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 him amenable to be valid recipients of pension, as the prior thereto application clause, is rather workable, vis-à-vis, him. Therefore, for want of exclusion of work charge employees, in Rule 2 of CCS (Pension) Rules, hence makes him amenable to be valid recipients of pension, as the prior thereto application clause, is rather workable, vis-à-vis, him. 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 workman, 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 theirs working as work charge employees in the apposite work charge establishment given theirs 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. Therefore, they are 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 become rather entitled to all post retiral benefits being purveyed to him in the mode enshrined in Annexure R-1.” Consequently, they are entitled to all post retiral benefits from the funds where to which they make subscriptions. Therefore, this Court finds no merit in the petition, and, the same is accordingly dismissed. All pending application stand disposed of accordingly.” Consequently, in terms (supra), this Court, obviously denied to the writ petitioner therein, his espoused claim qua his post retrial benefits, rather being covered by Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972. 4. Therefore, this Court finds no merit in the petition, and, the same is accordingly dismissed. All pending application stand disposed of accordingly.” Consequently, in terms (supra), this Court, obviously denied to the writ petitioner therein, his espoused claim qua his post retrial benefits, rather being covered by Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972. 4. However, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner placed reliance, upon, a verdict made by the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court, upon, CWP No. 2371 of 2010, decided on 31.08.2010, titled as Harbans Lal vs. The State of Punjab and others, wherein in the hereinafter extracted relevant paragraph, the rendition of services by a workman, on a work charged status, was construed to be eligibilizing him, hence, for the purpose of receiving pensionary benefits:- “In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to treat the whole period of work charge service as qualified service for pension because accordingly clarification issued on 30.05.2008 (Annexure P-3), the new defined Contributory Pension Scheme would be applicable to all those employees who have been working prior to 1.1.2004 but have been regularized thereafter. Let his pension and arrears be calculated and paid to him expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this Order.” The afore verdict as made by the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court, came to be affirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court, through its making a decision, upon, SLP (C) 23578 of 2012, in case titled as State of Punjab and Ors vs. Harbans Lal. However, from the afore made conclusive verdict, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, cannot make any valid argument, for the espoused mandamus being made against the respondents, as, unlike in the verdicts as made by this Court, the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court was dealing with the restructured defined Contributory Pension Scheme. Therefore, the apposite scheme qua wherewith the Punjab and Haryana High Court became seized with, was contradistinct from, the scheme hence appertaining to the extant lis, besides, when through Annexure P-3, borne in Harbans Lal verdict (supra), as carried therein, the restructured defined contributory pension scheme, was made applicable to those employees who were working prior to 2004, and, who had been regularized thereafter. Consequently, with the Punjab and Haryana High Court, dealing with the afore specific new defined Contributory Scheme and, obviously its not dealing with the Himachal Pradesh Civil Services Contributory Pension Rules, 2006, rather whereons the afore conclusive binding verdict(s) became pronounced by this Court, and, also with theirs completely covering the lis at hand. Therefore, no valid leverage can be derived by the counsel for the petitioner, from the verdict supra rendered by the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court, and, latter affirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court. 5. For foregoing reasons, there is no merit in the extant petition, and, it is dismissed accordingly. No costs. All pending applications also stand disposed of.