ORDER : By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs: “1. That the present original application may kindly be allowed throughout with cost and the action of the Respondent No. 3. whereby, the case for authorization of pension in favor of the applicant has been illegally and arbitrarily rejected by the Respondents vide order dated 27.03.2015 and 10.08.2015 (Annexure A- 3 & A-4) may kindly be quashed and set aside, 1A. Quash order dated 23.11.2015 Annexure A-8, whereby the respondent have wrongly made the recovery/deduction from the GPF account of the applicant and further direct the respondent to refund the same with the up-to-date interest; 1B. Quash rule 1(2) and rule 2 of Himachal Pradesh Civil Service contributory Pensions Rules, 2006, whereby these rules have been given a retrospective application, beside being arbitrary illegal and also against the principal Notification whereby these rules were to be come into force from date of publication in rajpatra. 2. That the respondents may be directed to release the due and admissible superannuation pension w.e.f. June 2015 onwards up to date with interest @ 9% per annum. 1. Precisely, the facts of the case as emerge from record are that the petitioner was appointed as a Trained Graduate Teacher (Arts) on 7.5.2003 and he joined against such post on 23.5.2003. After having rendered 12 years against the post in question, petitioner stood superannuated on 31.3.2015 Since the petitioner joined his services on 23.5.2003, despite his having been appointed as Trained Graduate Teacher on 7.5.2003, respondent-State denied him regular pension as well as GPF (pay out) on the ground that Government of Himachal Pradesh issued Notification dated 17.8.2006, whereby Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 (for short, ‘Pension Rules’) were made inapplicable to the appointments made on or after 15.5.2003. Precisely, grouse of the petitioner is that once he stood appointed as a Trained Graduate Teacher on 7.5.2003, and department itself while offering appointment had given 20 days joining time, he could not be denied benefit of pension and GPF in terms of Pension Rules, 1972, on the basis of his joining, which was admittedly after 15.5.2003, whereafter State of Himachal Pradesh had made Pension Rules, inapplicable to the appointments made on or after 15.5.2003. 2. 2. Respondents in their reply have categorically admitted factum with regard to appointment of the petitioner against the post in question on 7.5.2003 but has made an attempt to justify its action in denying pensionary benefits as well as GPF on the ground that since petitioner joined on 23.5.2003, he cannot be held entitled to pension and GPF in terms of Pension Rules, 1972, which were actually made inapplicable to the appointments made on or after 15.5.2003. 3. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused material available on record, especially Notification dated 17.8.2006, this court finds that expression used in Notification is “appointments made in the State of Himachal Pradesh on or after 15.5.2003” meaning thereby all appointments made after 15.5.2003 would be governed by Notification dated 17.8.2006, whereby Pension Rules, 1972 were made inapplicable to the appointments made on or after 15.5.2003. 4. In the case at hand, it is not in dispute that petitioner stood appointed as Trained Graduate Teacher (Arts) on 7.5.2003 and as such, he cannot be denied benefit of Pension Rules, 1972 merely on the ground that he joined his services on 23.5.2003. While offering appointment to the petitioner on 7.5.2003, respondents granted time to the petitioner to join the post within 20 days, as such, it cannot be permitted at this stage to deny pensionary benefits to the petitioner on the ground that he joined service after 15.5.2003. Person similarly situate to that of the petitioner, who was also given appointment on 7.5.2003 but had joined after 15.5.2003, approached this court in CWPOA No. 71 of 2019 (Raj Kumar Verma vs. State), which was allowed and direction was issued to the respondents to extend all pensionary benefits and to allot GPF number to the petitioner in that case. Aforesaid judgment was though taken in appeal in LPA No. 73 of 2021 by the State but same was dismissed vide judgment dated 3.8.2021. It would be apt to take note of judgment passed by Division bench of this Court upholding judgment of learned Single Judge: “4(ii) In CWP 9266/2014 titled Harish Kumar & Another Vs. State of H.P. & Others, decided by a Division Bench of this Court on 31.12.2014, the petitioners therein had called in question the action of the respondents in drawing seniority on the basis of date of joining and not as per merit obtained in the same selection process. State of H.P. & Others, decided by a Division Bench of this Court on 31.12.2014, the petitioners therein had called in question the action of the respondents in drawing seniority on the basis of date of joining and not as per merit obtained in the same selection process. Taking note of AIR 1990 SC 1607 the Direct Recruit Class-II Engineering Offices Association and other Vs. State of Maharashtra & Others, (1994) 6 SCC 301 Chairman Puri Gramya Bank and another Vs. Ananda Chadra Das and others, AIR 2003 SC 2000 Bimlesh Tanwar Vs. State of Haryana and others, (2007) 1 SCC 405 Suresh Chandra Jha Vs. State of Bihar & Others, the Court held that seniority of those appointed in same recruitment process shall be assigned from their order of merit in the appointment order and not from dates of their joining. 4(iii). In (2020) 13 SCALE 406 titled Manohar Lal Jat & Ors Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors., while interpreting Rajasthan Commercial Taxes Subordinate Services General Branch Rules, it was held as under:- 30. Plainly, the principal mandate of the rule is that seniority is determined on the basis of date of appointment (“shall be fixed from the date of their appointment”). Proviso (2) lists out two rules. The first is that those selected and appointed through a prior selection would rank senior to those selected and appointed through a later selection process. The High Court, in this case, was of the opinion that this rule (i.e. proviso) applied to selections from the same source, i.e. where two sets of direct recruits were appointed, those selected through a previous recruitment process, would rank senior to those recruited through a later recruitment process. This interpretation is, in this court’s opinion, salutary. There may be various reasons why the ultimate appointment of one batch of recruits may be delayed: challenges to some part of the recruitment process (such as shortlisting, calling of candidates for interviews etc.), during which period, a subsequent recruitment may be undertaken. To forestall any apprehensions as to which of the appointees would be senior, and if those from the earlier process are appointed later, the proviso clarifies that candidates from the earlier process would rank senior, despite the main rule speaking of a date of appointment based seniority. To forestall any apprehensions as to which of the appointees would be senior, and if those from the earlier process are appointed later, the proviso clarifies that candidates from the earlier process would rank senior, despite the main rule speaking of a date of appointment based seniority. The same logic would apply to departmental promotees, as well, if two batches of promotees are appointed, through selection. The second limb of the second proviso clarifies that when merit based, or seniority based promotions are resorted to, the applicable norm would be seniority in the feeder cadre, to forestall any debate about the rule of merit (in the selection) being the guiding principle. 5. It is thus settled law that seniority of those selected in the same recruitment process relates to the date of appointment in the order of their merit and not to the date of their joining. Admittedly, respondent No.1 was appointed on 07.05.2003, meaning thereby, respondent No.1 was appointed prior to the cutoff date of 15.05.2003 indicated in the notification dated 17.08.2006. The appellants have themselves mentioned the date of appointment of respondent No.1 as 07.05.2003 in the order dated 31.07.2013 and rightly so because the date of joining can be different of different persons appointed under the same recruitment process. Date of joining within the prescribed joining time may depend upon various fortuitous circumstances. Date of joining of respondent No.1/writ petitioner i.e. 27.05.2003 is irrelevant for determining his eligibility to the applicability of CCS (Pension) Rules. It is his date of appointment i.e. 07.05.2003, which will determine his eligibility. There is no error in the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge.” 5. Hon'ble Division Bench, having taken note of various judgments passed by it as well as Hon'ble Apex Court has categorically held that seniority of those appointed in same recruitment process shall be assigned from their order of merit in the appointment order and not from dates of their joining. 6. Consequently, in view of detailed discussion as well as law taken note herein above, this court finds merit in the present petition and the same is allowed. Annexures A-3, A-4 and A-8, are quashed and set aside and respondents are directed to grant all pensionary benefits alongwith arrears of pension, to the petitioner, if otherwise found eligible forthwith. Recovery amount, if any, deducted from GPF of the petitioner, on account of interest etc. Annexures A-3, A-4 and A-8, are quashed and set aside and respondents are directed to grant all pensionary benefits alongwith arrears of pension, to the petitioner, if otherwise found eligible forthwith. Recovery amount, if any, deducted from GPF of the petitioner, on account of interest etc. on GPF accumulations may also be refunded to the petitioner within three months from today. Petition stands disposed of alongwith all pending applications.