ORDER : By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for the following substantive reliefs:- “(i) Issue writ of mandamus for direction to the respondent-department to consider the case of petitioner under Central Civil Service Rules, 1972 and to start deduction towards general provident funds (ii) Issue a writ of mandamus for direction to the respondent department not to make applicable notification dated 17.8.2006 retrospectively w.e.f. 15.5.2003 and same be made applicable prospectively more particularly no applicable in the case of the petitioner” 2. Petitioner was employed as daily wage labourer in Karsog Forest Division in the year 1991. He completed 240 days in each calendar year w.e.f. 1991. Petitioner was granted work charge status w.e.f. 1.1.2002. His services were regularized in 2006. 3. The State Government vide notification dated 17.8.2006 made modification in Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 and thereby, the employees appointed on or after 15.5.2003 were held disentitled under 1972 Rules and Contributory Pension Scheme was made applicable to such employees. 4. The grievance of petitioner is that on his regularization, he was also made to subscribe to the Contributory Pension Scheme and the benefits of CCS Pension Rules 1972 were illegally denied to him. He filed representation but to no avail. 5. The case of the petitioner is that since he was conferred the work charge status w.e.f. 1.1.2001, the period during which he had worked as work charge employee was to be counted towards qualifying service under CCS Pension Rules. His further case is that the Contributory Pension Scheme would not be applicable in his case. 6. Respondents have contested the claim of petitioner on the grounds that the petitioner was granted work charge status retrospectively w.e.f. 1.1.2001 vide office order dated 12.5.2011, by which time, the Contributory Pension Scheme had come in force, therefore, the same was applied in the case of the petitioner. It is also submitted that the services of the petitioner were regularized after 2003 and for such reasons also, he was not entitled to the benefit of General Provident Fund. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the case file carefully. 8. It is also submitted that the services of the petitioner were regularized after 2003 and for such reasons also, he was not entitled to the benefit of General Provident Fund. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the case file carefully. 8. In State of H.P. and others vs. Sukru Ram and another, CMPM No. 423 of 2017, decided by a Division Bench of this Court on 23.5.2017, it was held as under : “The issue is no longer res integra, which stands settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Punjab State Electricity Board and another v. Narata Singh and another, (2010) 4 SCC 317 , as also earlier decision of this Court in CWP No. 2240 of 2008, titled as The State of H.P. and others v. Sh. Tulsi Ram, decided on 31.5.2012, in which learned Single Judge, while holding the service rendered by the writ petitioner on work-charged basis from 1.4.2001 to 2.4.2017 to be counted for the purpose of pension” 9. Later in State of H.P. & others vs. Matwar Singh & another, CWP No. 2384 of 2018, decided by a Division Bench of this Court on 18.12.2018, it was held as under:- “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 the light of view taken by this Court in CWP No.6167 of 2017, titled Sukru Ram vs. State of H.P. & others, decided on 6th March, 2013. A Full Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court in Keshar Chand vs. State of Punjab through the Secretary P.W.D. 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.” 10. 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.” 10. Similarly, in CWP No. 2956 of 2019, decided on 13.7.2021, another Division Bench of this Court observed as under:- “It has also been contended by respondents that the petitioners were granted work charge status only vide order dated 13.10.2015 and the expression used therein was “work charge regularization”. In any case, be it conferment of work charge status or regularization in favour of petitioner vide office order dated 13.10.2015, the same will not affect the outcome of this petition. In view of the law laid down by this Court in CWP No. 6167 of 2017, titled Sukru Ram vs. State of H.P. & Ors., CWP No. 2384 of 2018 titled State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. Vs. Matwar Singh and also by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Prem Singh Vs. State of H.P. (2019) 10 SCC 516 , the work charge status followed by regular appointment has to be counted as a component for qualifying service for the purpose of pension and other retiral benefits.” Thus, it is more than settled now that work charge status followed by regular appointment has to be counted as a component for qualifying service for the purpose of pension and other retiral benefits. 11. Adverting to the facts of the present case, the petitioner was conferred work charge status on 1.1.2002 and was followed by his regularization in 2006. Thus, the service of petitioner as work charge employee, followed by regular appointment is liable to be counted for the purpose of pension and other retiral benefits, hence the distinction drawn by respondents on the ground that petitioner was regularized after the cutoff date i.e. 15.5.2003 cannot be sustained. 12. It is apt to reproduce the observations made by Hon’ble Supreme Court in para-31 of the judgment rendered in case of Prem Singh vs. State of U.P. & others 2019 (10) SCC 516 , which read as under:- “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 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 work-charged establishment”. 13. Once the work charge employment of the petitioner is held liable to be counted for the grant of pensionary benefits to him, as a natural corollary, he will be governed under CCS Pension Rules, 1972 and the Contributory Pension Scheme will not be applicable to him. 14. For the aforesaid reasons, the present petition is allowed. Respondents are directed to consider the period of work-charge employment of the petitioner, followed by his regular service for the purpose of grant of pensionary benefits and for that purpose to grant him GPF Number, within a period of three months from today. Pending applications, if any, also stands disposed.