JUDGMENT : S.N. PATHAK, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioners have approached this Court with a prayer for quashing of the part of the orders of appointment dated 15.10.2019, 17.10.2019 and 18.10.2019, whereby although the respondents have accepted the services of the petitioners in regular establishment, but treating them as fresh appointees have deprived the petitioners from getting pensionery benefits. Hence, the petitioners have prayed for a direction upon the respondents to count their services from the date of their initial engagement i.e. from the year 1988-89 and thereafter, release the arrears of salary on the basis of calculation of their services from the date of their initial engagements and also extend the pensionery benefits to them. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioners were engaged as daily rated employees by the respondents in the year 1988-1989. Thereafter they continued in services, and finally they were terminated in the year 1996 and 1997. The termination of services of the petitioners was against the provisions of Section 25 F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, that is without any notice and without any requisite payment. Their termination from services after rendering 240 days of employment in a year under the respondents, gave them opportunity to raise Industrial Dispute before the Appropriate Government. The Industrial Disputes raised was referred to the Labour Court at Ranchi. The matter was referred and registered as Reference Case No. 06/2002. The dispute was referred by the Government, vide Notification dated 10.07.2005, summarized as to whether the dismissal and non-absorption of the daily rated employees, by the department is lawful, and if not to what other relief(s) the workmen are entitled to? The reference case was decided in favor of the petitioners, and it was decided that the removal of the petitioners, was retrenchment against the provisions of section 25F of the Industrial disputes Act, 1947. The final order dated 29.6.2005 in the Reference Case was passed as Award under the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act. It was directed that the petitioners should be reinstated in services, and they were directed to be treated to have been in service with continuity. The action of respondents of removal was declared as null and void. 4. The Award passed in the Reference Case was tested before the Writ Court in W.P.(L) No. 3962/2006, and was confirmed, vide order dated 08.07.2008. The action of respondents of removal was declared as null and void. 4. The Award passed in the Reference Case was tested before the Writ Court in W.P.(L) No. 3962/2006, and was confirmed, vide order dated 08.07.2008. The matter was thereafter confirmed by the Division Bench in LPA No. 484/2008, vide order dated 04.08.2009. Thereafter upon appeal, it was rejected by the Hon’ble Supreme Court also. Hence, the reinstatement of the petitioners in services was reconfirmed, and the petitioners gave their joining before the respondents. 5. It is the case of the petitioners that thereafter they preferred representation before the Department for consideration of their cases for regularization of services from daily wages to regular establishment. This representation of the petitioners was rejected by the respondents on 23.09.2016. The reason prescribed for the rejection of the representation was that the petitioners were not engaged, initially, as daily rated employees, against any sanctioned and vacant post. Further, the process of regular appointment was not followed. Hence, it was decided that they cannot be regularized, as per the Government Scheme, and their representation was rejected. 6. The above-mentioned decision of the respondents was subject matter of scrutiny, before this Court in the earlier round of litigation in W.P. (S) No. 3382/2016 filed by the petitioners, herein. Further, prayer was made in the writ petition for regularization of the services. The case of the petitioners was allowed by the Court and the order of rejection of the Department was set aside vide judgment and order dated 11.05.2017. The order passed by the Writ Court was affirmed by the Division Bench in LPA No. 14/2018, vide judgment and order dated 24.01.2019. This was further confirmed before the Supreme Court in SLP civil No. 19923/2019, vide order dated 15.07.2019. 7. In the aftermath of the entire litigation, the respondents were forced to pass the final order bringing the petitioners into the realm of regular establishment, but no order was passed and it was only when one contempt application, being Contempt Case civil No. 861/2017 was preferred, pursuant to which the respondents had passed orders dated 15.10.2019, 17.10.2019 and 18.10.2019, whereby the petitioners though were brought in regular establishment, but they were not treated as regularized, rather initial appointees. Further, it was mentioned in the orders that they would not be entitled for the benefits of past services. 8. Further, it was mentioned in the orders that they would not be entitled for the benefits of past services. 8. This is the cause of action for the petitioners, and, therefore, they have preferred the present writ petition challenging the decision of the respondents in taking the petitioners in regular establishment, but not treating them as regularized from the initial date of appointment, rather as initial appointees, restricting the benefit of past services. 9. Mr. Saurabh Shekhar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners argues that the petitioners, though were initially engaged on daily rate basis, but they were appointed against the sanctioned post in a regular manner. This fact has been characterized in the Award passed in the Reference Case, wherein the Labour Court has given a categorical finding that the petitioners’ services were regular, only because they were being treated as irregular employees and further they were not being formally regularized and granted the benefits of regular employees, their entitlement cannot be denied. The petitioners were reinstated in the services. Further, the Writ Court in W.P. (S) No. 3382/2016, vide judgment and order dated 11.05.2017, has held that in no manner, it can be said that the services of the petitioners were taken by the respondents by appointing them in illegal/irregular manner, the finding of the Labor Court was relied upon to hold that the petitioners were inducted in the service against the sanction post, and they were appointed following a regular means. It was directed that they were entitled for order of regularization of their services on the post on which they were initially appointed. Placing reliance upon the said verdict of the Court, it is submitted that this view has been affirmed up to the Hon’ble Apex Court. He further argues that even in the Contempt Case, it was observed by the court that it has been observed by the Writ Court as well as Letters Patent Court, in so many words, which would indicate that they were validly appointed and their services were regularly inducted and, hence, only a formal order of regularization is required to be passed. 10. 10. In view of the above background, learned counsel further submits that since the petitioners were inducted in services against vacant and sanctioned post and there is a finding of fact by the Labor Court, affirmed upto the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the petitioners are entitled for regularization and counting of their past services against the post on which they were engaged initially. He further submits that since the petitioners were appointed after following regular means and against sanctioned post makes the petitioners entitled for counting of their services, against a particular pay scale and salary, and hence the benefit of pension may be extended to them. 11. Learned counsel relied upon the settled preposition of law that grant of pension after retirement is not a bounty, rather entitlement. He further submits that the respondents have not cited any provisions of pension rules, which would restrict the payment of pension to employees who are appointed against vacant and sanctioned post, even though not regularized, and the present scenario only tenders the nature of services rendered by the petitioners as temporary. For temporary employees, who have rendered services for more than 15 years, the entitlement of pension is open, as per Rule 59 of the Pension Rules. He further submits that in the present case, once regularized, if the petitioners are not granted pensionary benefits, in the similar manner as others, there will be breach of parity and it will hurt the provisions of Article 14 of the constitution of India. 12. On the basis of the above submissions, it has been stressed that action of the respondents in passing the impugned orders, negating the benefits of past services is arbitrary and the respondents have forced the petitioners to enter into the third round of litigations. 13. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that the case of the petitioners cannot be considered in view of the fact that there is no circular or scheme of the State Government, which allows consideration of services rendered by the petitioners under daily rated establishment to be counted as regular for the purposes of pensionery benefits. The impugned orders clearly mention that their services will be counted from the date of joining in the regular establishment. The impugned orders clearly mention that their services will be counted from the date of joining in the regular establishment. Referring to the counter affidavit and the statements made therein, learned counsel submits that the petitioners were regularized in pursuance to the government scheme and the regular appointment will be effective from the date of appointment/joining. The petitioners are not covered under old pension scheme and they are coming within the purview of new pension scheme. To fortify this stand, the respondents have placed reliance upon one Government Letter dated 18.03.2021, which speaks about the manner in which the services of the work charge employees has to be treated before granting them the benefits of pension and calculating their past services. On the basis of these arguments, learned counsel submits that the case of the petitioners for grant of pension as per old pension scheme, and to count the past services is not mandated under law. Therefore, their case should be dismissed. Findings of the Court. 14. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the records, this Court is of the considered view that the case of the petitioners needs consideration. At the outset, it is required to be held that the case of the present petitioners is not like that of any other daily rated employee, but carries a peculiar background. The facts of the present case will disclose that the present set of daily rated employees were appointed in a manner that has been endorsed by the Courts in two rounds of litigation, confirmed up to Hon’ble Supreme Court. Further, the fact that they were appointed against sanctioned post has been settled in pursuance to the decision rendered in the Award passed in the Reference Case. It has been endorsed in the subsequent rounds of litigation. The case of the present petitioners should be looked and judged in the aforesaid perspective. 15. In the present case, the same set of petitioners had earlier moved before the Labour Court by preferring and raising an industrial dispute, before appropriate authority. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court, in which after appreciation of evidence, both documentary and oral, final orders was passed in award, whereby the petitioners were directed to be reinstated in services. In the present case, the same set of petitioners had earlier moved before the Labour Court by preferring and raising an industrial dispute, before appropriate authority. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court, in which after appreciation of evidence, both documentary and oral, final orders was passed in award, whereby the petitioners were directed to be reinstated in services. In that case the learned labor Court had recorded a finding, which is being produced here in below.:- “Under these circumstances I am unable to accept the contention for the management that no work is available to the concerned workman. The management's witness i.e., M.W. 3 Kedar Nath Chief Engineer P.H.E.D. produced the cyclostyle copy of the documents of the department and has stated that as per this document there was 571 sanctioned post and out of 571 sanctioned post presently 110 workers are appointed on regular basis and as per this documents the requirement of the workmen are 571. In view of the discussion made above I am unable to accept the contention of the management that the workmen have not been appointed in a regular manner and procedure relating to the temporary appointment of the State Government and its various order/circular have not been followed and therefore these appointment being illegal this cannot be regularised.” 16. This Award dated 29th June, 2005, passed in Reference Case No.06 of 2002, and finding of fact by the Labour Court in the reference case was tested before the Writ Court and the same was affirmed upto the Hon’ble Apex Court. In W.P.(S) No. 3382/2016, vide judgment and order dated 11.05.2017 i.e the earlier round of litigation, while dealing with petitioner’s prayer for regularization, the Court has observed as under:- “10. In the first place, it needs to be recorded that claim of the petitioners is for regularisation of their services, but not in terms of the Regularisation Rules of 2015. They are not illegally appointed dailywages workers and by virtue of Award dated 29.06.2005 they must be treated as regularly appointed employees under the respondent-State. Onetime scheme floated by the State of Jharkhand vide Notification dated 13.02.2015 is not the only scheme for regularisation. It is also not true that a dailywages worker, though not irregularly appointed, can be regularised only by framing onetime scheme for regularisation. Onetime scheme floated by the State of Jharkhand vide Notification dated 13.02.2015 is not the only scheme for regularisation. It is also not true that a dailywages worker, though not irregularly appointed, can be regularised only by framing onetime scheme for regularisation. Real import of the decision in “Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others vs. Umadevi and Others”, (2006) 4 SCC 1 (paragraph no. 53) is that minor procedural lapse in appointment should not end in termination of service. It is in the nature of recognition of a right in the adhoc/dailywages/temporary employees who were irregularly appointed. In “Nihal Singh and Others vs. State of Punjab and Others” (2013) 14 SCC 65, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that, “Umadevi” judgment cannot become a licence for exploitation by the State and its instrumentalities. However, petitioners' claim for regularisation needs to be examined separately and independently. The petitioners, who were initially appointed more than 28 years ago and after their reinstatement about 5 years under the respondent-State, have certainly become entitled for regularisation. Further continuance of the petitioners on dailywages, denying them benefits of regular employees, would be unfair and contrary to the rule of fair play in action. View thus, I am of the opinion that the petitioners are entitled for an order for regularisation of their service on the post on which they were initially appointed. By way of clarification it is added that for regularisation in service creation of permanent additional posts is not necessary. 11. In the result, impugned order dated 23.09.2016 is quashed. The writ petition stands allowed.” 17. On Perusal of the above order and judgment passed by the Writ Court, (WPS No. 3382/2016, dated 11.05.2017, in the previous round of litigation), it is quite clear that the direction was passed to regularize the services of the petitioners on the basis of the fact that they were appointed legally and against the vacant and sanctioned post. Their appointments have been found to be not illegal. In this context, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Nihal Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Ors., reported in (2014) 14 SCC 65 has laid down the law that if the engagement or appointment has been made legal in the eyes of law then the employees who have rendered long years of services should not be secluded and allowed to continue as such. Vs. State of Punjab & Ors., reported in (2014) 14 SCC 65 has laid down the law that if the engagement or appointment has been made legal in the eyes of law then the employees who have rendered long years of services should not be secluded and allowed to continue as such. Rather, it discloses that the nature of such employment is perennial and hence non-consideration of their cases for regularization would amount to unethical and unfair labor practice. 18. Relying on the aforesaid verdict of the Hon’ble Apex, it was also observed by the Writ court that the case of the petitioners should not be denied on the basis of consideration of their case against a government scheme. Under such circumstances and in view of the fact that appointment of the petitioners was legal and against the sanctioned posts, it was directed to regularize them. 19. Most importantly, the Writ Court, in W.P.(S) No. 3382/2016, has clearly held that the petitioners are already working against sanctioned posts and, therefore, there is no need to create fresh posts for regularization of their services. The entire situation only highlights to one particular scenario that the petitioners were working against vacant posts and hence the appointment was lawful. The Order of regularization would be a formal mechanism to enhance the benefits rooting from the regular establishment. Such reading of the judgment of the Writ Court and the verdict of the award passed in the reference case, leads to inevitable conclusion that if not anything else, the petitioners were working temporarily for the respondents, i.e. prior to putting them in the regular establishment, in the year 2019. This further puts forth the scheme as provided under the Pension Rules, wherein under Rule 59 it has been provided that if an employee has worked for more than 15 years on temporary basis, he shall be entitled for pension. 20. The Writ court in WPS No. 3382/2016 has also set aside the decision of the respondents, dated 23.09.2016, whereby the regularization was denied, claiming that the employees were not working on sanctioned posts. This ground was struck down by this Court, placing reliance on the finding in this relation by the Labour Court, in Reference Case No. 06/2002, Award dated 10.07.2005, that the Petitioners were appointed on the sanctioned Posts. This ground was struck down by this Court, placing reliance on the finding in this relation by the Labour Court, in Reference Case No. 06/2002, Award dated 10.07.2005, that the Petitioners were appointed on the sanctioned Posts. Therefore, there remains no doubt that the petitioners were working on a sanctioned and vacant post and their nature of appointments have been found to be lawful, as per the award passed in reference case and the judgment of the Writ Court in WPS No. 3382/2016. 21. In this regard, further reference may be had to the judgment passed in the case of Harbans Lal v. The State of Punjab & Ors, reported in 2010 SCC Online P&H 8181, wherein it has been held that the provisions of pension rule, and the fact that pension is not a bounty should be read down in a manner to make the employees entitled for grant of pension. This was said in specific reference of the fact that the engagement in that case were made against sanctioned post, and therefore the base scale against the post could be calculated over the period in order to compute pensionary benefits to be payable to the employees therein. 22. In the case of Harbans Lal (supra), in para 9, the court has held that the clauses of the Scheme have to be read by keeping in view the fact that pension is not a bounty of the State and it is earned by employees after rendering long service to fall back upon after their retirement. The same cannot be arbitrarily denied. The clause was subjected to the principle of ‘reading down’ a well-known tool of interpretation to sustain the constitutionality of a statutory provision and accordingly it was read down to mean that the qualifying service could commence either from the date of taking charge of the post to which the employee was first appointed or from the date he started contributing to the Contributory Provident Fund whichever was earlier. The ratio of the above-mentioned judgment would apply to the facts of the instant case, inasmuch as, the provision made in clause 6(6) of the 1992 Scheme has to be read down to mean that qualifying service would commence from the date of continuous appointment, which is 17.8.1965 in the present case, or from an earlier date if the employer had started contributing to the Contributory Provident Fund whichever is earlier. Therefore, the petitioner would be entitled to count her service with effect from the date of her appointment and approval i.e. 17.8.1965. It has been further said in the judgment that the engagement of an employee under daily rated, if made against a sanctioned post, then the benefit of pension against that post can be granted, since the appointment was made against a post which carries an independent pay scale. 23. This Court finds no force in the argument of learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioners should not be granted the benefits of past services, only for the reason that there is no scheme that allows daily rated employees to be treated as entitled for pension, is not sustainable. In the present case this is not applicable for the reason that the petitioners have already been taken in permanent establishment. Further, the argument of the respondents that the petitioners have been regularized under the scheme floated by the State Government, in pursuance to the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Uma Devi (supra), is also not acceptable, as because the petitioners were regularized on the basis of the principles laid down in the case of Nihal Singh (supra), as declared and confirmed so, by the judgment and order dated 11.5.2017, passed in WPS No. 3382/2016, confirming the status under daily rated as lawful and directing for regularization. 24. The prayer of the petitioners finds resonance with the judgement of Honorable Supreme Court in the case of S. Sumnyan & Ors v. Limi Niri & Ors, reported in (2010) 6 SCC 791 , the Hon’ble Apex Court has held as under: “44. We may here also appropriately refer to another decision of this court in G.P. Doval v. Govt. The prayer of the petitioners finds resonance with the judgement of Honorable Supreme Court in the case of S. Sumnyan & Ors v. Limi Niri & Ors, reported in (2010) 6 SCC 791 , the Hon’ble Apex Court has held as under: “44. We may here also appropriately refer to another decision of this court in G.P. Doval v. Govt. of U.P., wherein this court held that regularization of the services of a person, whose initial appointment although not in accordance with the prescribed procedure but later on approved by an authority having power and jurisdiction to do so would also relate back to the date of initial appointment.” 25. The prayer of the petitioners should further be tested in the light of the settled position that the petitioners who have already been regularized cannot be deprived of pensionary benefits, when their past services is not shadowed in the cloud of illegal appointment and that they have been appointed against sanctioned post, which carries a particular pay scale. This position should be viewed in conjunction with the position of law that pensionary benefit is sacrosanct to the employees who have rendered more than 30 years of services and have now retired. At the fag end of their life, they are vulnerable to all kinds of health and social hazards, and it is in this time that they require the financial support the most. In doing so the past services rendered by them is important to consider as to give them the benefits of pension. The entitlement under the provisions of pension rules has to be interpreted and read down to meet this purpose. The State has to act as a welfare State, and if the above mentioned essential requirements are fulfilled, then the entitlement to pension should not be restricted, by not counting the past services. 26. In the case of State of Jharkhand v. Bir Kuar Paswan [Civil Appeal No. 13372 of 2015], the Court held that the petitioner cannot be deprived of his pensionary rights and admittedly the past service rendered by the petitioner has to be counted for the purpose of pension and other consequential benefits. 27. In the case of Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, Patiala v. Mangal Singh, reported in (2011) 11 SCC 702 , the Apex Court has held as under:- “34. 27. In the case of Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, Patiala v. Mangal Singh, reported in (2011) 11 SCC 702 , the Apex Court has held as under:- “34. Pension is a retirement benefit partaking of the character of regular payment to a person in consideration of the past services rendered by him. We hasten to add that although pension is not a bounty but is claimable as a matter of right, yet the right is not absolute or unconditional. …..” 28. In the case of Deokinandan Prasad v. State of Bihar, reported in (1971) 2 SCC 330 , the Supreme Court has held as under:- “31. … … pension is not a bounty payable on the sweet will and pleasure of the Government and that, on the other 6 hand, the right to pension is a value right vesting in a government servant.” 29. In the case of Poonamal v. Union of India, reported in (1985) 3 SCC 345 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under thus:- “7. … … pension is a right not a bounty or gratuitous payment. The payment of pension does not depend upon the discretion of the Government but is governed by the relevant rules and anyone entitled to the pension under the rules can claim it as a matter of right.” 30. In the case of U.P. Raghavendra Acharya v. State of Karnataka, reported in (2006) 9 SCC 630 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has held; “25. Pension, as is well known, is not a bounty. It is treated to be a deferred salary. It is akin to right of property. It is correlated and has a nexus with the salary payable to the employees as on the date of retirement.” 31. In the case of State of Gujarat & Ors v. Talsibhai Dhanjibhai Patel, reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 2004, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the State cannot be permitted to take the benefit of its own wrong. To take the Services continuously for 30 years and thereafter to contend that an employee who has rendered 30 years continues service shall not be eligible for pension is nothing but unreasonable. As a welfare State, the State as such ought not to have taken such a stand. 32. To take the Services continuously for 30 years and thereafter to contend that an employee who has rendered 30 years continues service shall not be eligible for pension is nothing but unreasonable. As a welfare State, the State as such ought not to have taken such a stand. 32. For the foregoing reasons, it can comfortably be said that as per law, the entitlement to pension is on the basis of fulfilling prerequisite, as per the Pension Rules. Further, the nature of services rendered by the petitioners in ad hoc establishment has to be marked. Also, the findings of the Courts, in the earlier round of litigations that the petitioners had been working for more than 25 years against sanctioned post and their appointment and services have been rendered as to be legal, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the petitioners are entitled to pension, on cumulative reading of Rule 59 of the Pension Rules and manner of employment and services rendered under ad hoc establishment, as also the principles on which the petitioners have been regularized, following the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Nihal Singh (supra). 33. The case of the petitioners cannot be treated as to be general or any other daily rated employees, rather under the special circumstances as has been mentioned herein above, in the present case, the petitioners are held entitled for pensionary benefits by counting the past services. Consequently, the new pension scheme (contributory) of 01.01.2004 will not be applicable so far as the cases of the petitioners are concerned. It is directed that the case of the petitioners should be considered from the date of their initial engagement in the year 1988-89 for grant of pensionary benefits. Decision in this relation shall be taken by the respondents within a period of six weeks, following the observation and finding of the Court, and further the process of pension shall be initiated and pension shall be paid within a period of six weeks thereafter. 34. With the above observations the writ petition stands allowed.