JUDGMENT : Ranjan Sharma, J. Notice. Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General and Mr. Tek Ram Sharma, Advocate, appear and waive service of notice on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 3 and respondent No.4. 2. With the consent of the parties, the instant writ petition, is taken up for disposal at this stage, in view of the orders, intended to be passed herein. 3. The petitioner, being the widow has claimed for husband and then, the resultant family pension for herself, has filed the instant writ petition, for the following relief(s):- “That the respondent may be ordered to pay pension and other retiral benefits to the petitioner w.e.f 1.1.2018 with all benefits incidental thereof.” 4. Mr. A.K. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner has set up a case that the petitioner was initially engaged on daily wage basis in the year 1988 but based on continuous service from 1991 his services were brought on work charge establishment/regularization on completion of 10 years service and the petitioner retired from service at the age of 58 years on 30.06.2006, after rendering more than five years and five months of regular service. In the above background, Mr. Ashwani Gupta, learned counsel submits that the pension is eligible and entitled to pension w.e.f. 1.1.2018, in view of nine years and six months of regular service combined with-regular deemed service; based on five years and six months of actual regular service [i.e. from 1.1.2001 to 30.6.2006] and two years of deemed regular service arrived at in lieu of ten years of continuous daily waged service [i.e from 1.1.1991 to 31.12.2000] and additional two years of regular service upto the deemed age of retirement of 60 years [i.e. from 1.7.2006 to 30.6.2008] in view of the Full Bench Judgment in CWP No. 2711 of 2017, titled as Baldev vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, decided on 22.02.2022. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the mandate of Hon’ble Supreme Court, in case, of Sunder Singh Versus State of Himachal Pradesh, in Civil Appeal No.6309 of 2017, decided on 8.3.2018, the operative part thereof, read as under:- “6. Some of the petitioners whose writ petitions were disposed of vide the Division Bench's Judgment dated 31.05.2012 chose to assail the said judgment before the Hon'ble Apex Court by filing Special Leave Petitions. Some of the petitioners whose writ petitions were disposed of vide the Division Bench's Judgment dated 31.05.2012 chose to assail the said judgment before the Hon'ble Apex Court by filing Special Leave Petitions. The SLPs were connected and decided on 08.03.2018 under the lead case Civil Appeal No. 6309 of 2017, titled as Sunder Singh vs. State of H.P. and others. It would be pertinent to mention herein that the appellant in the aforesaid case were all retired regular Class-IV employees seeking to count the daily wage service, rendered by them prior to their regularization, towards qualifying service for pension. The Hon'ble Apex Court disposed of the petition with the following order: “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 under a Scheme. 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. 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.” 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Balo Devi vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others Latest HLJ 2022(HP)(2) (817), whereby the judgment in the case of Sunder Singh’s case has been clarified as under:- “The intent of this Court was quite clear that:- (a) The services rendered as a regular employee may first be computed. (b) To the service as rendered to above, the component at the rate of one year of regular service for every five years of service as daily wager, be added. (c) If both the components as detailed in Paras a & b herein above, take the length of service to a level of more than eight years but less than ten years, in terms of last sentence of paragraph 6 of the Order, the services shall be reckoned as ten years.” 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the Full Bench Judgment passed by this Court in CWP No.2711 of 2017, titled as Baldev vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, decided on 22.02.2022 wherein, in the context of FR 56(e), it has been mandated that the part time/daily waged who were engaged prior to 10.5.2001 but were appointed on regular basis on or after 10.5.2001 were to superannuate at the age of 60 years. The operative part of the judgment reads as under:- “7. There is now no confusion regarding employees falling in para 6(ii)(a) above. These employees can continue to serve till they attain the age of 60 years. However. an anomalous situation has developed amongst the employees falling in para 6(ii)(b) & 6(ii)(c). The employees falling in above para 6(ii)(b) and 6(ii)(c) for all practical purposes belong to the same category and are similarly situated. Both sets of employees were engaged on daily wage basis prior to 10.05.2001 and regularized after 10.05.2001. However. an anomalous situation has developed amongst the employees falling in para 6(ii)(b) & 6(ii)(c). The employees falling in above para 6(ii)(b) and 6(ii)(c) for all practical purposes belong to the same category and are similarly situated. Both sets of employees were engaged on daily wage basis prior to 10.05.2001 and regularized after 10.05.2001. Such of the employees engaged on daily wage basis prior to 10.05.2001 and regularized after 10.05.2001, if were in service on 21.02.2018, will continue to serve till they attain the age of 60 years. On the other hand, such of the employees, who were engaged on daily wage basis prior to 10.05.2001 and regularized after 10.05.2001. but have retired before the issuance of notification dated 21.02.2018. will not get the benefit of notification dated 21.02.2018. This to our mind is wholly discriminatory. Similarly situated employees are being treated differently. The employees, who were engaged on daily wage basis prior to 10.05.2001 and regularized after 10.05.2001, constitute one homogenous class. Differential treatment to the employees falling in same homogenous class is impermissible. In fact, amendment carried out in F.R. 56(e) on 21.02.2018 suggests that the date of regularization will have no impact upon the superannuation age. Date of engagement is the determinative factor. If a daily wager is engaged prior to 10.05.2021, then he is entitled to serve till 60 years of age irrespective of date of his regularization. This was held so in Bar Chand's case, decided on 21.10.2010. However, at the time of decision in Bar Chand's case, the amendment dated 21.02.2018 had not been carried out in F.R. 56(e). Therefore, though later judgment in Chuni Lal's case dated 22.11.2011, holding the decision in Bar Chand's case as per incuriam cannot be faulted as it was based upon strict interpretation of F.R. 56(e) as amended by the State at that time. However, in view of subsequent amendment of F.R. 56(e) on 21.02.2018 in the interregnum, situation has undergone further change. Reference made to the larger Bench is not only to decide about the inconsistency in the decisions referred therein, but also to put at rest related issues coming or likely to arise before different benches. Therefore, we hold that:- 7(i) There is an apparent inconsistency or conflict between the decisions referred to in the reference order dated 28.12.2019, which lies in a very narrow compass, as noticed in para 6(1) above. Therefore, we hold that:- 7(i) There is an apparent inconsistency or conflict between the decisions referred to in the reference order dated 28.12.2019, which lies in a very narrow compass, as noticed in para 6(1) above. In Chuni Lal's case, the decision rendered in Bar Chand's case was held to be per incuriam. The decision in Chuni Lal's case was based upon interpretation of F.R. 56(e) as it existed in the State at that time. But the judgment delivered in Tara Chand's case did not notice the decision in Chuni Lal's case. The judgment in Gian Singh's case in respect of continuation in service was based upon the verdict in Tara Chand's case. In both these Judgments. learned Single Judges did not notice the judgment delivered in Chuni Lal's case. In Letters patent appeal, the Division Bench while affirming the judgment passed by the Id. Single Judge in Gian Singh's case though did not notice the judgment rendered in Chuni Lal's case however the amendment dated 10.5.2001 reducing the superannuation age from 60 to 58 years was held to be not applicable to the writ petitioner, who was held entitled for regularisation prior to 10.5.2001. 7(ii) Inconsistency between Bar Chand and Chuni Lal now stands, not just resolved, but rather dissolved, in view of notification dated 21.02.2018 amending F.R. 56(e). issued by the State, which has now reinforced and reiterated what was held in Bar Chand's case, i.e. date of regularization of a class IV daily wager whether prior or after 10.05.2001, will make no difference to the age of his continuing in service. It is the date of engagement, which is the decisive factor. If date of engagement/appointment is prior to 10.05.2001, the Class-IV employee will continue to serve till 60 years of age. In case, it is later than 10.05.2001, then restriction in age upto 58 years will apply. 7(iii) There cannot be any discrimination amongst similarly situated Class-IV employees belonging to one homogenous class. Therefore the retirement date, of such of those employees, who had been engaged on daily wage basis prior to 10.05.2001, but regularized after 10.05.2001 and have actually been retired prior to the issuance of notification dated 21.02.2018 at the age of 58 years, shall be deemed to be the date when they otherwise attained the age of 60 years. Therefore the retirement date, of such of those employees, who had been engaged on daily wage basis prior to 10.05.2001, but regularized after 10.05.2001 and have actually been retired prior to the issuance of notification dated 21.02.2018 at the age of 58 years, shall be deemed to be the date when they otherwise attained the age of 60 years. Since these employees have not actually worked beyond the age of 58 years, therefore, they will not be entitled to the actual monetary benefits of wages/salary etc. for the period of service from the date of their actual retirement till deemed dates of their retirement. However. they will be entitled to notional fixation of their pay for the period in question for working out their payable pension and payment of consequential arrears of pension accordingly. Reference is accordingly answered. The writ petitions be now placed appropriately before the respective Benches.” 8. In aforesaid background, this Court is of the considered view that once the petitioner has rendered or deemed to have nine years and six months of regular service; based on five years and six months of regular service [w.e.f. 1.1.2001 till 30.6.2006 and two years of deemed regular service in lieu of ten years of continuous daily waged service [w.e.f. 1.1.1991 to 30.12.2000] as per mandate of law in Sunder Singh (supra); two years of deemed regular service beyond 58 years of age upto 60 years of age [w.e.f 30.06.2006 to 30.06.2008] in terms of the judgment of the Full Bench in case of Baldev (supra); then, after having rendered more than the minimum eight years of regular service, the aforesaid eight years regular service is to be reckoned as ten years, qualifying for pension to the petitioner w.e.f. 01.01.2018. 9. Accordingly, based on the regular service, so arrived at, once the petitioner has completed-rendered more than the minimum eight years of service, therefore, the petitioner is eligible and entitled to pension in terms of the mandate of law, in case of Sunder Singh, Baldev, Balo Devi (supra) under the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, w.e.f. 1.1.2018 notionally; except past arrears, which shall be restricted for a period of three years, prior to the filing of writ petition [on 23.12.2022], in terms of the settled law, referred to in succeeding paras. 10. Mr. 10. Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General submits that though the mandate of law in case of Sunder Singh, Baldev and Balo Devi (supra) is not in dispute. However, the eligibility of the petitioner for pension needs to be verified; with further directions to Respondent No.2-Engineer-in-Chief, (HPPWD), Himachal Pradesh, Shimla, to verify the facts and to consider/examine the claim of the petitioner, in accordance with the mandate of judgments, passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Sunder Singh, Baldev and Balo Devi (supra) and then to pass the appropriate orders, in the matter, within six weeks, from the date of receipt of representation. Ordered accordingly. 11. Upon consideration, in case, the respondents extend and grant pension, to the petitioner, a retired beldar (Class-IV), then, the benefit of pension shall accrue from 1.1.2018 notionally. However, it is clarified that the actual monetary benefits/arrears shall be confined for a period of three years, preceding the filing of this writ petition {23.12.2022}, in terms of the mandate of law, in the case of Union of India versus Tarsem Singh (2008) 8 SCC 648 ; Shiv Dass versus Union of India and Others; (2007) 9 SCC 274 ; State of Madhya Pradesh and Others versus Yogendra Shrivastava (2010) 12 SCC 538 ; Asger Ibrahim Amin Versus Life Insurance Corporation of India (2016) 13 SCC 797 , followed in Rushibhai Jagdishchandra Pathak versus Bhavnagar Municipal Corporation CA No.4134 of 2022 [2022 SCC online SC 641] decided on 18.5.2022, and arrears beyond three years cannot be claimed/granted. The consequential action be taken by the respondents within three months from today. In aforesaid terms, the Writ Petition as well as the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of, accordingly.