ORDER : By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for following substantive reliefs: “i) That the respondents may be ordered to take into account the service rendered by the petitioner on daily wage basis/temporary basis w.e.f. 1987 till 1998 for the purpose of pension and the entire service may be ordered to qualify and the same may be added to the qualifying service for the purpose of pension and other retiral benefits and the pension of the petitioner may be ordered to be re-fixed from the due date with all the benefits incidental thereof.” 2. The facts as pleaded in the petition are that the petitioner was engaged as T-mate by the respondents in March, 1987. His services were brought on work charge/regular establishment w.e.f. 01.01.1998. Petitioner retired in November, 2012 and he is getting pension on the basis of 13 years of his service after 01.01.1998. 3. The petitioner claims that his services prior to 01.01.1998 are also liable to be counted as qualifying service for pension and other retiral benefits. As per petitioner, he was employed as temporary workman in the regular establishment of respondent No.1 prior to 1.1.1998 and as such, his entire service would qualify for the purpose of pension as per the CCS(Pension) Rules, 1972. The petitioner further claims that the respondents had prepared his service book and he was also subjected to medical examination before his appointment which means that petitioner was temporary workman. 4. The claim of the petitioner has been contested by respondents. It is averred that petitioner is estopped from filing the petition and is also not entitled for relief on account of delay and laches. On merits, it is submitted that the services of the petitioner rendered as daily wager cannot be counted towards pensionary benefits. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the records of the case carefully. 6. The petitioner has placed reliance upon the Standing Orders applicable to respondent No.1. Petitioner submits that since his services were utilized continuously from 1987 till 1997 with 240 days in each calendar year, his employment cannot be said to be casual. As per the petitioner he has worked as a temporary employee in regular establishment of respondent No.1 which gives him right to claim the period of service rendered by him before 01.01.1998 to be counted towards qualifying service for pension. 7. As per the petitioner he has worked as a temporary employee in regular establishment of respondent No.1 which gives him right to claim the period of service rendered by him before 01.01.1998 to be counted towards qualifying service for pension. 7. Clause 5 of the Standing Orders relied upon by the petitioner read as under: “5. The Board shall have the following classes of workmen in the different establishments: - (a) Regular establishment having temporary and permanent workmen. (b) Workcharge establishment having work charge workmen. (c) Casual establishment having Casual/ Temporary workmen. (d) Apprentices. Explanation: - (a) The workmen (Temporary & Permanent) on regular establishment shall be governed by F.R.& S.R. (b) The workmen in workcharge establishment shall also be governed by F.R. & S.R. but for the purpose of leave the provisions of these Standing Orders shall apply. (c) A ‘Temporary Workman’ in casual establishment shall mean a workman who has been engaged for a work which is essentially of a temporary nature and likely to be finished within a limited period. (ii) A ‘Casual workmen’ in Casual establishment is a workman whose employment is of a Casual nature. (iii) A Casual Workman shall be said to be in continuous service for a period if he is, for that period, in un-interrupted service, including service which may be interrupted on account of reasons as indicated hereunder in the Note. Where a Casual workman is not in continuous service within the meaning of above sub-para for a period of one year, he shall be deemed to be in continuous service for one year, if he, during a period of twelve calendar months preceding the date with reference to which calculation is to be made, has actually worked in the different areas of the Pradesh as under :- 1. All areas of H.P. except Lahaul & Spiti District Bharmour area in Chamba Distt., and Pangi/Killar areas in Chamba Distt. 240 days 2. Lahaul & Spiti Distt. 140 days 3. Bharmour area in Chamba Distt. 180 days 4. Pangi and Killar area in Chamba Distt. All areas of H.P. except Lahaul & Spiti District Bharmour area in Chamba Distt., and Pangi/Killar areas in Chamba Distt. 240 days 2. Lahaul & Spiti Distt. 140 days 3. Bharmour area in Chamba Distt. 180 days 4. Pangi and Killar area in Chamba Distt. 120 days The Casual Workman fulfilling the above criteria shall be made temporary in its services in the Casual establishment and shall be given 10% additional marks at the time of making regular selections for the work-charged/regular posts, if he has un-interrupted service of five years in the Board and he fulfills the eligibility qualifications and has been employed through employment exchange. Further, he shall be given age relaxation if he becomes overage by serving in the Board on daily wages. **Note.*** “Uninterrupted Service” includes service interrupted on account of the following reasons, namely: - (i) Sickness, as certified by a Doctor or Employees State Insurance Scheme where such scheme is applicable, or elsewhere by a Registered Medical Practitioner. (ii) Accident. (iii) Authorised leave. (iv) Lay-off as defined in the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (XIV) of 1947) (v) Strike which is not illegal. (vi) Lock-out. (vii) Cessation of work which is not due to any fault of the workman concerned. (viii) Involuntary employment. (d) Apprentice: An apprentice is a learner who is paid an allowance during the period of his training.” 8. According to aforesaid provision, respondent No.1 maintains four types of establishments i.e. Regular establishment, Work-charge establishment, Casual establishment and Apprentices. As per his own admission, petitioner was placed in work-charge establishment w.e.f. 01.01.1998. It being so, the petitioner cannot claim to have worked in regular establishment prior to 01.01.1998 because a person working in regular establishment will not be again taken on work charge establishment, whereas vice versa can be true. Having accepted the work charge status w.e.f 01.01.1998, petitioner cannot subsequently turn around and claim that his employment prior to 01.01.1998 was in regular establishment. Explanation (b) to Clause 5 reproduced above, clearly provides that only the workmen on regular establishment and in workcharge establishment shall be governed by F.R. & S.R. subject, however, to an exception that in case of work charge employees, the provisions of the Standing Orders shall apply for the purpose of leave. 9. Further, the petitioner has otherwise failed to lay any factual foundation to establish his claim. 9. Further, the petitioner has otherwise failed to lay any factual foundation to establish his claim. Petitioner has not placed on record his initial order of appointment or the document by virtue of which he was conferred work charge status w.e.f. 01.01.1998. 10. Petitioner has tried to draw strength to his case from judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Veena Devi vs. Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Ltd. and another, CWP No. 5400 of 2014, decided on 21.11.2014. Perusal of said judgment reveals that the reliance thereon by petitioner is misplaced. The same cannot be used by petitioner to propagate his cause as the facts in the case of Veena Devi (supra) were entirely different. Petitioner in said case was appointed as a Clerk on contract basis and had worked as such continuously. It was on consideration of her contract employment vis-à-vis the provisions of Rule 17 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, that the matter was decided. 11. The petitioner was granted work charge status on 01.01.1998. He did not raise any grievance at that stage. He retired in November, 2012 and kept silent thereafter without any justifiable cause. The petition has been filed at highly belated stage, hence the petition also suffers from vice of delay and laches. 12. Resultantly, there is no merit in the petition and the same is accordingly dismissed, so also the pending applications if any.