JUDGMENT : Ajay Mohan Goel, J. By way of this petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs:­ “(i) That Annexure P­4 dated 12.06.2019 may kindly be quashed and set aside as the same is contrary to settled law. (ii) That the directions may kindly be issued to the respondents to pay the pension to the petitioner form the due date keeping in view the judgment passed in Civil Appeal No.6309/2017 titled as Sunder Singh Versus The State of H.P., Annexure P­2. (iii) That the respondents may kindly be directed to pay the pension to the petitioner with interest @ 12% per annum.” 2. The case of the petitioner is that he was engaged on daily wage basis in the year 1994. His services were regularized w.e.f. 01.01.2003. He superannuated on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.12.2011. Pension was denied to him on the ground that he has not completed ten years of service post regularization which was pre­requisite for being eligible for grant of pension. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Sunder Singh vs. The State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors., Civil Appeal No.6309 of 2017, decided on 08.03.2018 (Annexure P­2) and submitted that in terms of this judgment if there is a short fall in completion of ten years of service post regularization in the case of a workman, then the service rendered by such a workman on daily wage basis has to be given credit to and five years of service rendered on daily wage basis is to be treated as one year regular service or pension. He submitted that as the petitioner had put in more than eight years of service before his regularization on daily wage basis, therefore, five years of daily wage service has to be treated as one year of regular service for pension and by doing so the petitioner shall gain eligibility for the purpose of grant of pension. He prays that petitioner be thereafter allowed as prayed for. 4. He prays that petitioner be thereafter allowed as prayed for. 4. Learned Deputy Advocate General on the other hand has submitted that the petitioner cannot be granted benefit of the judgment being relied upon by him, for the reason that therein the services of the workman stood regularized in terms of the Policy in vogue at the relevant time as was upheld by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Mool Raj Upadhyaya vs. State of H.P. and Ors. 1994 Supp(2) SCC 316, whereas in the case of the petitioner as he stood regularized after completion of eight years of service on daily wage basis, therefore, is not covered by the judgment of Sunder Singh’s case (supra). 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also carefully gone through the pleadings as well as the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Sunder Singh’s case (supra). 6. It is a matter of record that the petitioner was engaged on daily wage basis in the year 1994 and his services were regularized w.e.f. 01.01.2003. He stood retired from the service w.e.f. 31.12.2011 and has not been paid pension as he has not completed ten years of service post his regularization. 7. Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Sunder Singh’s case (supra) has been pleased to hold that though the workman therein had not rendered requisite ten years of service which led to denial of pension to them and strict construction of the Rules may lead to the appellants therein being not entitled to pension, but reading the Rules consistent with Articles, 34, 38 and 39 of the Constitution of India and applying the doctrine of proportionate equality, Hon’ble Supreme Court was of the view that the appellants were entitled to weightage of service rendered as daily wager towards regular service for the purpose of pension. Thereafter, Hon’ble Supreme Court was pleased to order that w.e.f. 01.01.2018, the appellants and other similarly Class­I employees will be entitled to pension if they have been duly regularized and have completed total eligible service for more than ten years, daily wage service of five years will be treated equal to one year regular service or pension and if on that basis their services were more than eight years, but less than ten years, their service will be reckoned as ten years. 8. 8. Now, incidently, Hon’ble Supreme Court while observing that daily wage service of five years will be treated equal to one year of regular service for the purpose of the eligibility of a workman for pension did not distinguish between a daily wager who stood regularized upon completion of eight years or ten years of service. Thus, the principle of law which stands laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court is that daily wage service of five years will be treated equal to one year of regular service for the purpose of pension. 9. In the present case, admittedly, the petitioner has put in nine years of service when he superannuated after his regularization. Before he was regularized he has put in eight years of service of regular service on daily wage basis. This means that he has to be given benefit of five years of daily wage service by treating the same to be one year of regular service for the purpose of pension. By doing so, taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner had put in nine years service after regularization, his length of service automatically goes to ten and this renders him eligible for the purpose of grant of pension. 10. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed by holding that as the petitioner had put in more than five years of daily wage service before his regularization, he has to be given the benefit of these five years of daily wage service by treating the same to be one year of regular service for the purpose of pension. The act of the respondents of denying pension to the petitioner on the grounds as are mentioned in the Writ Petition is held to be bad in law. Annexure P­4, in terms whereof, the case of the petitioner was rejected by the respondents is also quashed and set aside and the respondents are directed to grant pension to the petitioner w.e.f. 01.01.2018. Taking into consideration the fact that this Writ Petition has been filed in the year 2019, the petitioner shall be granted pension from 01.01.2018 onwards. Regular pension be paid to the petitioner from the month of May, 2024 onwards and the arrears be made good to him within a period of three months from today. Taking into consideration the fact that this Writ Petition has been filed in the year 2019, the petitioner shall be granted pension from 01.01.2018 onwards. Regular pension be paid to the petitioner from the month of May, 2024 onwards and the arrears be made good to him within a period of three months from today. In case the arrears are not paid to him within a period of three months from today, then the same shall entail simple interest @ 6% from the due date. 11. The petition stands disposed of. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of.