JUDGMENT : RITU BAHRI, C.J. 1. There are 14 connected matters, including Special Appeals filed by the State Government against the order of the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (S/S) No. 910 of 2021 and Writ Petitions filed by individuals seeking directives for regularization and benefits from the date of their initial appointment. For better understanding of the case, it is necessary to segregate Special appeals from the bunch and deliver separate judgment for the same. In this judgment, we are dealing with Writ Petition (S/S) No. 441 of 2022. 2. The petitioner in WPSS No. 441 of 2022 seeks a writ of certiorari and mandamus, directing the respondents to correct the date of the petitioner's regularization to 1991 as per the Regularization Rules of 2003 and the judgment dated 17.12.2021 in WPSS No. 910 of 2021. The petitioner also seeks all service benefits, including pension, gratuity, and other retirement dues, by counting daily wage service as qualifying service and granting the benefits of the old pension scheme with interest. Initially, the writ petition was listed before the learned Single Judge of this Hon'ble High Court but was referred to a bench of appropriate strength vide order dated 21st March 2022 with the following legal question: “Whether a person, regularized under a particular Rule can be treated to be regularized from a date anterior to the date of enforcement of said Rule, especially when the Rule provides that (i) 'regularization' is to be made only after assessment by a Selection Committee; (ii) the date of regularization is to be treated as date of substantive appointment and (iii) a regularized employee is to be placed in the seniority list below other employees, regularly appointed in the cadre, before his regularization?” 3. The petitioner was initially appointed as a Cartographer on 04.07.1980 on a daily wage basis and continuously worked in that capacity. In 2011, respondent no. 2 issued an order to provide minimum pay scales to daily wage workers in the Forest Department, including the petitioner, whose name appeared at serial number 29. The petitioner's services were regularized on 15.09.2012 as a Draftsman (Maanchitrakaar) by Forest order No. 10/1-14 (4) Dehradun. 4. In 2021, the petitioner was promoted to Head Draftsman (Pradhan Maanchitrakaar) based on the D.P.C. recommendation dated 09.09.2021, with a pay scale of Rs 35400-112400/-. The petitioner's services were regularized on 15.09.2012 as a Draftsman (Maanchitrakaar) by Forest order No. 10/1-14 (4) Dehradun. 4. In 2021, the petitioner was promoted to Head Draftsman (Pradhan Maanchitrakaar) based on the D.P.C. recommendation dated 09.09.2021, with a pay scale of Rs 35400-112400/-. The petitioner retired on 31.01.2022, upon reaching the age of 60, as per the order dated 06.10.2021. However, neither gratuity nor any pension benefits were paid upon retirement. 5. The petitioner claims over 33 years of service, arguing that this duration should qualify for benefits under the Gratuity Act, as even daily wagers with five years of continuous service are entitled to gratuity. Similarly, ten years of temporary service qualifies for pension. The petitioner contends that the respondents erroneously failed to count his service as qualifying for these benefits. Despite multiple requests to the authorities, both oral and written, his pension remains unpaid, prompting this petition. 6. The policy of regularization was framed by the Government of Uttarakhand, Forest and Environment Section-vide issuing notification and framing rules namely “Uttaranchal Forest Department Regularisation (on Group ‘D’ Posts) of Daily Wages Appointment Rules, 2003.” Rules 4, 6 and 8 of the said Rules state as under: “(1) Any Person Who: (a) was directly appointed on daily wages basis.......Group 'D' posts in the Forest Department under Government service before June 29, 1991 and is continuing in service as such on the date of commencement of these rules. (b) possessed requisite qualification prescribed for regular appointment for that post at the time of such appointment on daily wage basis under the relevant service rules, shall be considered for regular appointment in permanent or temporary vacancy, as may be available in the Forest Department in Group 'D' post, on the date of commencement of these rules on the basis of his record and suitability before any regular appointment is made in such vacancy in accordance with the relevant service rules or orders. (6) The Selection Committee shall prepare a list of selected candidates in order of seniority, and forward the same to the Chief Conservator of Forests (Administration). The Chief Conservator of Forests (Administration), keeping in view the position/number of the vacancies of Group “D” posts in different Divisions/Circles/Offices and subject to the sub (2) of Rule-4, forward the names of selected candidates, in the order in which their names stand in the list, to the appointing authority concerned. The Chief Conservator of Forests (Administration), keeping in view the position/number of the vacancies of Group “D” posts in different Divisions/Circles/Offices and subject to the sub (2) of Rule-4, forward the names of selected candidates, in the order in which their names stand in the list, to the appointing authority concerned. (8) The Service of a person appointed on a daily wage basis who is not found suitable, after consideration under these rules, shall be terminated forth with and, on such termination, he shall be entitled to receive one month's wages.” 7. Petitioner was working with the department since 1980 and rendered his services continuously without any gap before getting regularised in the year 2012. There is no doubt that the petitioner rendered services for such a long time as a daily wage worker, and seeking benefits after retirement as a regularised employee can get. 8. Heard the learned counsels for the parties at length. 9. Learned counsel of the petitioner stated that the respondents while issuing the regularization order treated the order of regularization is as fresh appointment which is arbitrary and illegal because the petitioner has rendered more than 33 years of service, but due to inaction on the part of the State Govt. to declare them regular and permanent, they have been depriving to get the benefit of pension and gratuity at par to their regular counterparts. He further contended that there is a gross discrimination towards the petitioner in respect of their regularization and the respondents have adopted pick and choose policy and granted benefits of regularization to juniors earlier and despite of this fact that the vacancies were available at that point of time but their case has not been considered in due time. Apart from this no benefit of service for the period of they engaged on daily wager has been given in respect of granting of gratuity or EPF benefits. The induction in the regularized cadre from the daily wager is without any interruption and break. There is no change in the nature of duties in their regular establishment and the nature and duties are identical and same as being done in the daily wages basis. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Putti Lal, (2006) 9 SCC 337 . 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Putti Lal, (2006) 9 SCC 337 . The relevant paragraph is reproduced herein-below: “6. So far as the State of Uttaranchal is concerned, a scheme for regularisation of daily workers has been produced before us which, prima facie, does not appear to be objectionable excepting the provision regarding qualification for regularisation. Be it stated that the qualification essential for being regularised would be the qualification as was relevant on the date a particular employee was taken in as a daily-wager and not the qualification which is being fixed under the scheme. The fact that the employees have been allowed to continue for so many years indicates the existence or the necessity for having such posts. But still it would not be open for the Court to indicate as to how many posts would be created for the absorption of these daily-wage workers. Needless to mention that the appropriate authority will consider the case of these daily-wagers sympathetically who have discharged the duties for all these years to the satisfaction of their authority concerned. So far as the salary is concerned, as we have stated in the case of the State of Uttar Pradesh, a daily-wager in the State of Uttaranchal would be also entitled to the minimum of the pay scale as is available to his counterpart in the Government until his services are regularised and he is given regular scale of pay.” 11. The counsel while referring the above judgment cited that as per the judgment and the rules of regularisation of 2003, the petitioner is entitled to be treated as a regular employee with effect from 1991 in terms of the rules of 2003 as he was appointed as daily wager in 1988 and continuously worked till his retirement and in the year 2012 his services were regularized on the same post against he was working since his initial appointment, as such services may be treated as regular employee from the date his initial appointment for the purpose of his post retiral benefits like pension, gratuity, leave encashment etc. 12. He further referred the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Prem Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2019) 10 SCC 516 . The relevant paragraphs are reproduced as under: “33. 12. He further referred the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Prem Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2019) 10 SCC 516 . The relevant paragraphs are reproduced as under: “33. The question arises whether the imposition of rider that such service to be counted has to be rendered in-between two spells of temporary or temporary and permanent service is legal and proper. We find that once regularisation had been made on vacant posts, though the employee had not served prior to that on temporary basis, considering the nature of appointment, though it was not a regular appointment it was made on monthly salary and thereafter in the pay scale of work-charged establishment the efficiency bar was permitted to be crossed. It would be highly discriminatory and irrational because of the rider contained in the Note to Rule 3(8) of the 1961 Rules, not to count such service particularly, when it can be counted, in case such service is sandwiched between two temporary or in-between temporary and permanent services. There is no rhyme or reason not to count the service of work-charged period in case it has been rendered before regularisation. In our opinion, an impermissible classification has been made under Rule 3(8). It would be highly unjust, impermissible and irrational to deprive such employees benefit of the qualifying service. Service of work-charged period remains the same for all the employees, once it is to be counted for one class, it has to be counted for all to prevent discrimination. The classification cannot be done on the irrational basis and when respondents are themselves counting period spent in such service, it would be highly discriminatory not to count the service on the basis of flimsy classification. The rider put on that work-charged service should have preceded by temporary capacity is discriminatory and irrational and creates an impermissible classification. 34. As it would be unjust, illegal and impermissible to make aforesaid classification to make Rule 3(8) valid and non-discriminatory, we have to read down the provisions of Rule 3(8) and hold that services rendered even prior to regularisation in the capacity of work-charged employees, contingency paid fund employees or non-pensionable establishment shall also be counted towards the qualifying service even if such service is not preceded by temporary or regular appointment in a pensionable establishment. 35. 35. In view of the Note appended to Rule 3(8), which we have read down, the provision contained in Regulation 370 of the Civil Services Regulations has to be struck down as also the instructions contained in Para 669 of the Financial Handbook. 36. There are some of the employees who have not been regularised in spite of having rendered the services for 30-40 or more years whereas they have been superannuated. As they have worked in the work-charged establishment, not against any particular project, their services ought to have been regularised under the Government instructions and even as per the decision of this Court in State of Karnataka vs. Umadevi, (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753. This Court in the said decision has laid down that in case services have been rendered for more than ten years without the cover of the Court's order, as one-time measure, the services be regularised of such employees. In the facts of the case, those employees who have worked for ten years or more should have been regularised. It would not be proper to regulate them for consideration of regularisation as others have been regularised, we direct that their services be treated as a regular one. However, it is made clear that they shall not be entitled to claiming any dues of difference in wages had they been continued in service regularly before attaining the age of superannuation. They shall be entitled to receive the pension as if they have retired from the regular establishment and the services rendered by them right from the day they entered the work-charged establishment shall be counted as qualifying service for purpose of pension. 37. In view of reading down Rule 3(8) of the Uttar Pradesh Retirement Benefits Rules, 1961, we hold that services rendered in the work-charged establishment shall be treated as qualifying service under the aforesaid rule for grant of pension. The arrears of pension shall be confined to three years only before the date of the order. Let the admissible benefits be paid accordingly within three months. Resultantly, the appeals filed by the employees are allowed and filed by the State are dismissed.” 13. The arrears of pension shall be confined to three years only before the date of the order. Let the admissible benefits be paid accordingly within three months. Resultantly, the appeals filed by the employees are allowed and filed by the State are dismissed.” 13. Recently, this Court while deciding a bunch of special appeals, filed by the State of Uttarakhand, against the judgment dated 05.07.2018, passed in Writ Petition (S/S) No. 2684 of 2015, Balraj Singh Negi vs. State of Uttarakhand and Others, had examined the case where the benefit of contractual services could not be made ground to give the benefit of seniority. The only benefit which a person could take is that his services from ad hoc before he was substantially appointed or regularized will be counted for the benefit of pension. In Paragraph Nos. 10 and 11, the Division Bench has held as under: “10. The past services rendered by a contractual employee had to be taken into account for the purpose of pension only. This proposition has already been considered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Himachal Pradesh and Others Vs Sheela Devi, SLP (C) No. 10399 of 2020, decided on 07.08.2023, while upholding the judgment of the Himachal Pradesh High Court relying upon Rule 17(2) of CCS Pension Rules holding that Rule 17 was engrafted essentially to cater to the eventuality where the employees working on contract basis were regularized on a later stage. It is only for the purpose of pension that the past services as contractual employee is to be taken into account. 11. Similar view has also been taken by Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Som Nath and Others Vs. State of Punjab and Others, CWP No. 1432 of 2012, along with batch of writ petitions, decided on 23.01.2013, holding that the entire daily wage service of an employee from 1988 till the date of his regularization is to be counted as qualifying service for the purpose of pension.” 14. The judgment of the learned Single Judge was modified with respect to the consequential benefits. 15. The ratio of the abovesaid judgment is applicable to the facts of the case of the petitioner as well. The petitioner was regularized vide order dated 15.09.2012 as Draftsman, and he was initially appointed on daily wages as Cartographer on 04.07.1980. The judgment of the learned Single Judge was modified with respect to the consequential benefits. 15. The ratio of the abovesaid judgment is applicable to the facts of the case of the petitioner as well. The petitioner was regularized vide order dated 15.09.2012 as Draftsman, and he was initially appointed on daily wages as Cartographer on 04.07.1980. As per the case of the petitioner, he was appointed as Cartographer on daily wages on 04.07.1980. However, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed on record the experience certificate of the petitioner dated 04.08.1989, issued by the Director (Annexure-1), and as per this experience certificate, he was appointed on daily wages on 04.05.1988, and he was regularized in service on 15.09.2012. Hence, as per the ratio of the abovesaid judgment, he has a right to count his daily wage services as per the experience certificate dated 04.08.1989 (Annexure1), till his regularization dated 15.09.2012 for the purposes of pension only. 16. The writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to recalculate petitioner’s pension after including the period from 04.05.1988 as per the experience certificate (Annexure-1) till his date of regularization, i.e. 15.09.2012, within a period of two months, and give necessary benefits to the petitioner. After re-fixing the pension of the petitioner, arrears will be restricted only to three years. 17. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.