ORDER : Satyen Vaidya, J. By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for the following substantive reliefs: “(i) That the writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or directions may kindly be issued, quashing the impugned order dated 01.06.2021 (Annexure P-6), being illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory, unconstitutional and against the settled law of service jurisprudence. (ii) That the writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or directions may kindly be issued, directing the Respondents to count daily wage service for the purpose of pension in view of the Judgment/order dated 08.03.2018 (Annexure P-3) for the purpose of counting 10 years for pensionary benefits. (iii) That the respondents may be directed to release all consequential arrears of pension and other retiral benefits alongwith arrears with interest @ 9% p.a. in favour of the petitioner. (iv) That the respondents may further be directed to pay the gratuity to the petitioner for the service rendered on daily wage basis w.e.f. 01.05.1987 to 31.12.1997 in view of the law laid in State of HP Versus Lashkari Ram {2008 (I) SLC 245}.” 2. The case set-up by petitioner is that he was appointed on daily wage basis as Beldar in Irrigation & Public Health (for short ‘I&PH’) Division Nurpur, District Kangra, H.P. on 01.05.1987. He continued to work as daily wager by rendering services for 240 days in each calendar year. Petitioner was regularised w.e.f. 01.01.1998. Petitioner was superannuated on 31.12.2006. On the strength of these facts, it has been contended on behalf of petitioner that petitioner served the respondent-Department for total period of 19 years including 9 years of regular service, therefore, he was entitled to the benefit of judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sunder Singh vs. The State of Himachal Pradesh, Civil Appeal No. 6309 of 2017. 3. Petitioner had approached this Court on earlier occasion by way of CWP No. 5067 of 2020, seeking similar relief as in the present case. A Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 02.03.2021 had disposed of CWP No. 5067 of 2020 by permitting the petitioner to make a representation to the respondents with direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner, pass appropriate orders and if found entitled for pensionary benefits, to release such benefit in his favour. 4. A Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 02.03.2021 had disposed of CWP No. 5067 of 2020 by permitting the petitioner to make a representation to the respondents with direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner, pass appropriate orders and if found entitled for pensionary benefits, to release such benefit in his favour. 4. In compliance to order dated 02.03.2021 passed in CWP No. 5067 of 2020, petitioner submitted his representation to the respondents, but respondent No.4 rejected the same vide office order dated 01.06.2021 (Annexure P-6), hence the present petition. 5. In response, the respondents have submitted that the judgment in Sunder Singh’s case (supra) was not applicable to the case of petitioner as the petitioner had rendered only 8 years and 8 months service including work charged service. He had worked only for 9 years on daily wage basis which was less than 10 years of daily wage of continuous service before the grant of work charged status/ regularization, as such, he was not entitled to weightage of two years as per the case of Sunder Singh. In alternative, it is submitted that even if the petitioner is allowed the benefit of weightage of one year on the basis of 9 years of daily waged services, his total service including regular service would be 9 years 8 months and will still fall short of 10 years regular services. On such premise, the impugned order dated 01.06.2021 (Annexure P-6) has been tried to be justified. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the records of the case carefully. 7. The perusal of impugned office order dated 01.06.2021 (Annexure P-6) reveals that respondent No.4 has rejected the claim of petitioner by holding as under: “…And whereas, the applicant was regularized under 9 year policy w.e.f. 01.04.1998 not under 10 year policy i.e. Mool Raj Upadhyaya case. It is, therefore, the applicant was not eligible for the benefits for pension as per decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No. 6309 of 2017, titled Sunder Singh Vs State of H.P. & Others, dated 08.03.2018, as such there is no question to grant the benefits of pension as per directions of the Hon’ble H.P. High Court Shimla dated 02.03.2021.” 8. Thus, the ground of rejection is that since petitioner was not regularised under 10 years policy, he was not entitled to the benefit of Sunder Singh’s case. The reason assigned by respondent No.4 for rejection of the claim of petitioner is clearly fallacious. The Hon’ble Supreme Court while deciding Sunder Singh’s case, has held as under:- “1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The appellants represent class of Class-IV employees who were recruited initially as daily wagers such as Peon/ Chowkidar/ Sweeper/ Farrash/ Malis/ Rasoia etc. Their services, thereafter, were regularized pursuant to the decision of this Court in Mool Raj Upadhyaya Vs. State of H.P. and Ors. 1994 Supp. (2) SCC 316 Signature Not Verified under a Scheme. Digitally signed by MADHU BALA Date: 2018.03.12 17:45:13 IST Reason: Regularization was after 10 years of service. 3. It is undisputed that the post-regularization an employee who had served for 10 years is entitled to pension for which work charge service is counted. Earlier, in terms of O.M. dated 14.05.1998, 50% of daily-wage service was also counted for pension after regularization but the rules have undergone change. 4. Since the appellants have not rendered the requisite 10 years of service they have been denied pension. 5. Even though strictly construing the Rules, the appellants may not be entitled to pension. However, reading the rules consistent with Articles 14, 38 and 39 of the Constitution of India and applying the doctrine of proportionate equality, we are of the view that they are entitled to weightage of service rendered as daily wagers towards regular service for the purpose of pension. 6. Accordingly, we direct that w.e.f 01.01.2018, the appellants or other similarly placed Class-IV employees will be entitled to pension if they have been duly regularized and have been completed total eligible service for more than 10 years. Daily wage service of 5 years will be treated equal to one year of regular service for pension. If on that basis, their services are more than 8 years but less than 10 years, their service will be reckoned as ten years. 7. The appeal as well as special leave petitions are disposed of in above terms.” 9. Daily wage service of 5 years will be treated equal to one year of regular service for pension. If on that basis, their services are more than 8 years but less than 10 years, their service will be reckoned as ten years. 7. The appeal as well as special leave petitions are disposed of in above terms.” 9. The term “similarly placed Class-IV employees” used in para-6 of above noted judgment, cannot be given restrictive meaning to include only those Class-IV employees of the Government of Himachal Pradesh, who were regularised pursuant to decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mool Raj Upadhyaya vs. State of H.P. and others 1994 (Supplement) 2, SCC 316. The Government of Himachal Pradesh after passing of judgment in Mool Raj Upadhyaya’s (supra) has formulated and implemented various schemes, from time to time, whereunder, the Class-IV employees working on daily waged basis having rendered continuous service of even less than 10 years, have been regularised. By restricting the scope of above noticed term “similarly placed Class-IV employees”, the employees who have been regularised in pursuance to scheme/policy of the Government of Himachal Pradesh, permitting the regularization even after 8 years, will be discriminated. As per Sunder Singh’s case (supra) daily wage services of 5 years has been directed to be treated equal to one year service for pension. Thus, a Class-IV daily wage employee having been regularised under a scheme/policy of the State Government permitting regularization after 8 years, though as per Sunder Singh’s case (supra) will be entitled for benefit of one year regular service in lieu of 5 years of daily waged services, but according to respondents, will not be entitled to such benefit simply because he was not regularised under the scheme formulated in pursuance of judgment passed in Mool Raj Upadhyaya's’ case (supra). The stand of the respondents is neither reasonable nor justified and hence, cannot be sustained. 10. As per the respondents, petitioner was appointed on daily wage basis w.e.f. 01.01.1989 and continuously worked as such till 31.3.1998. His services were regularised w.e.f. 01.04.1998 and petitioner superannuated from service on 31.12.2006. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that even if the dates of initial joining, regularization and superannuation of petitioner as detailed by the respondents are presumed to be correct, petitioner has rendered regular service of 8 years 9 months. His services were regularised w.e.f. 01.04.1998 and petitioner superannuated from service on 31.12.2006. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that even if the dates of initial joining, regularization and superannuation of petitioner as detailed by the respondents are presumed to be correct, petitioner has rendered regular service of 8 years 9 months. Indisputably, petitioner had rendered more than 5 years of daily waged services and, as such, the benefit of one year regular service as per Sunder Singh’s case would make the regular service of petitioner to be 9 years 9 months. He further contended that in such situation, petitioner is entitled for the benefit of sub rule (3) of Rule 49 of CCS (Pension) Rules, which reads as under : “3. In calculating the length of qualifying service, fraction of a year equal to three months and above shall be treated as a completed one half-year and reckoned as qualifying service.” 12. We find substance in the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner. Petitioner rendered regular service w.e.f. 01.04.1998 till 31.12.2006 i.e. for the period of 8 years 9 months. Petitioner had also rendered continuous daily wage service for 9 years 3 months w.e.f. 01.01.1989 till 31.03.1998, thus entitling him to the benefit of one year regular service as per the judgment of Sunder Singh’s case (supra). The total regular service of petitioner in this manner would be 9 years 9 months i.e. short of three months to complete qualifying service of 10 years to be entitled for pension under Rule 49 of CCS (Pension) Rules. 13. As noticed above, sub rule (3) of Rule 49 of CCS (Pension) Rules, provides for term of fraction of a year equal to three months and above as a completed one half year and also reckoned as qualifying service in calculating the length of total qualifying service. 14. A Full Bench of this Court while deciding CWP No. 3598 of 2019, titled as Balo Devi vs. State of H.P. and others, vide its judgment dated 28.9.2021, has held that for determining the qualifying service for the purpose of pension any benefit as provided in Rule 49 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, has not been taken away and an employee has not been precluded from getting such benefit. The benefit extended in Sunder Singh’s case is in addition to that and 10 years’ service, referred in that case, is to be calculated in the manner as provided under the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. 15. In light of the above discussion, the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of one year regular service as per Sunder Singh’s case (supra) and also the benefit under sub rule (3) of Rule 49 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. In this manner, the petitioner will be deemed to have completed 10 years qualifying service entitling him to the benefit of pension under Rule 49 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. Accordingly, office order dated 01.06.2021 (Annexure P-6) is quashed. The respondents are directed to grant the benefit of pension to the petitioner w.e.f. 01.01.2018 with all consequential benefits within three months from the date of production of a copy of this order before respondent No.4, failing which, petitioner shall also become entitled to interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the arrears of pension from due date i.e. 01.01.2018. 16. Petition is accordingly disposed of in the aforesaid terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.