JUDGMENT : Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J. 1. Notice. Ms. Menka Raj Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General and Mr. Tek Ram Sharma, Advocate, appear and waive service of notice on behalf of respondents No.1 to 5 and respondents No.6, respectively. 2. Considering the grievance of petitioner, the nature of the order impugned in the writ petition and the legal position settled by the Hon’ble Apex Court, there is not necessity for calling of reply from the respondents. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, matter is heard at this stage. 3. This writ petition has been filed for the grant of following substantive reliefs:- “i. That writ in the nature of certiorari may kindly be issued, whereby quashing and setting aside the impugned office order dated 19.10.2024, issued by the respondent No.5, being illegal and arbitrary. ii. That an appropriate writ, order or direction may kindly be issued to the respondents to release pension and other retiral benefits from the date it has become due till actually paid with interest in favour of the petitioner, with all consequential benefits. iii. That the respondents may also kindly be directed to pay interest on delayed payment of retiral dues, including pension, leave encashment, GPF, commutation of pension and gratuity from the date it has become due till actually paid.” 4. Petitioner was initially engaged as daily waged worker in Solan, Forest Division w.e.f. 20.01.1987. His services were regularized w.e.f. 21.09.2007 as Forest Worker. Petitioner retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.07.2016 (58 years). 5. Petitioner instituted CWP No. 2204 of 2023 , seeking work-charge status on completion of 8 years of daily waged service. The writ petition was disposed of on 30.05.2023, with directions to the respondent to consider the case of the petitioner in light of decision rendered in State of H.P. & Ors. vs. Surajmani & Anr., LPA No. 165 of 2021 decided on 12.01.2023. In compliance to above directions, respondent No.5 considered the case and vide order dated 19.10.2024 held that :- (i) There is no specific provision under the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, to count work-charge service for pensionary benefits; (ii). The respondents-Forest Department has preferred Special Leave Petition (C) No.23016 of 2023 against the decision rendered in Surajmani, LPA No.165 of 2021 decided on 12.01.2023 along with connected matters, which is pending adjudication. Feeling aggrieved, petitioner has instituted this writ petition. The respondents-Forest Department has preferred Special Leave Petition (C) No.23016 of 2023 against the decision rendered in Surajmani, LPA No.165 of 2021 decided on 12.01.2023 along with connected matters, which is pending adjudication. Feeling aggrieved, petitioner has instituted this writ petition. (i) Insofar as the respondents’ refusal to count work- charge service for pensionary benefits is concerned, the law is well-settled that work-charge service is to be counted for pensionary benefits. Reference in this regard can be made to Jogi Ram vs. State of H.P. & Ors. , CWP No. 7124 of 2021 decided on 25.02.2025 , where settled law has been summed up. Relevant portion of the same reads as under:- 4. Respondents’ stand for not counting the work charge service rendered by the petitioner towards pensionary benefits cannot be sustained in view of the law laid down by this Court as also by the Hon’ble Apex Court, which has been summarized in Naina Devi vs. State of H.P. & others [CWP No. 2960 of 2020 decided on 9.8.2024] as under:- “7. In State of H.P. and others vs. Sukru Ram and another, CMPM No. 423 of 2017, decided by a Division Bench of this Court on 23.5.2017, it was held as under: “The issue is no longer res integra, which stands settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Punjab State Electricity Board and another v. Narata Singh and another, (2010) 4 SCC 317 , as also earlier decision of this Court in CWP No.2240 of 2008, titled as The State of H.P. and others v. Sh. Tulsi Ram, decided on 31.5.2012, in which learned Single Judge, while holding the service rendered by the writ petitioner on work- charged basis from 1.4.2001 to 2.4.2017 to be counted for the purpose of pension” 8. Later in State of H.P. & others vs. Matwar Singh & another, CWP No. 2384 of 2018, decided by a Division Bench of this Court on 18.12.2018, it was held as under:- “It is by now well settled that the work charge status followed by regular appointment has to be counted as a component of qualifying service for the purpose of pension and other retiral benefits. Executive instructions, if any, issued by the Finance Department to the contrary, are liable to be ignored/struck down, in the light of view taken by this Court in CWP No. 6167 of 2017, titled Sukru Ram vs. State of H.P. & others decided on 6th March, 2013. A Full Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court in Keshar Chand vs. State of Punjab through the Secretary P.W.D. B&R Chandigarh and others, (1988) 94(2) PLR 223, also dealt with an identical issue where Rule 3.17 (ii) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules excluded the work charge service for the purpose of qualifying service. Setting aside the said Rule being violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, it was held that the work charge service followed by regular appointment will count towards qualifying service for the purpose of pension and other retiral benefits. The aforesaid view was also confirmed by the Hon’ble Apex Court.” 9. Similarly, in CWP No.2956 of 2019, decided on 13.7.2021, another Division Bench of this Court observed as under:- “It has also been contended by respondents that the petitioners were granted work charge status only vide order dated 13.10.2015 and the expression used therein was “work charge regularization”. In any case, be it conferment of work charge status or regularization in favour of petitioner vide office order dated 13.10.2015, the same will not affect the outcome of this petition. In view of the law laid down by this Court in CWP No. 6167 of 2017, titled Sukru Ram vs. State of H.P. & Ors., CWP No. 2384 of 2018 titled State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. Vs. Matwar Singh and also by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Prem Singh Vs. State of H.P., (2019) 10 SCC 516 , the work charge status followed by regular appointment has to be counted as a component for qualifying service for the purpose of pension and other retiral benefits.” Thus, it is more than settled now that work charge status followed by regular appointment has to be counted as a component for qualifying service for the purpose of pension and other retiral benefits. 10. 10. It is also apt to reproduce the observations made by Hon’ble Supreme Court in para-31 of the judgment rendered in case of Prem Singh vs. State of U.P. & others, 2019 (10) SCC 516 , which read as under:- “In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it was unfair on the part of the State Government and its officials to take work from the employees on the work-charged basis. They ought to have resorted to an appointment on regular basis. The taking of work on the work- charged basis for long amounts to adopting the exploitative device. Later on, though their services have been regularized. However, the period spent by them in the work-charged establishment has not been counted towards the qualifying service. Thus, they have not only been deprived of their due emoluments during the period they served on less salary in work-charged establishment but have also been deprived of counting of the period for pensionary benefits as if no services had been rendered by them. The State has been benefitted by the services rendered by them in the heydays of their life on less salary in work-charged establishment”. 11. Once the work charge employment of the petitioner is held liable to be counted for the grant of pensionary benefits to her, as a natural corollary, she will be governed under CCS Pension Rules, 1972 and the Contributory Pension Scheme will not be applicable to her.” 5. In view of above, petitioner’s prayer for considering the work charge service rendered by him towards grant of pensionary benefits, has merit and is accordingly accepted. Respondents/competent authority(s) are directed to consider and count the work charge service rendered by the petitioner as qualifying service for the purpose of grant of pension/pensionary benefits to him. Appropriate orders in that regard be passed in accordance with law within a period of four weeks from today. The order so passed be also communicated to the petitioner.” (ii) The second reason assigned by the respondents for rejecting the case of the petitioner for conferring upon him work-charge status, does not exist as of now. It is joint submission of learned counsel for the parties that SLP (C) No. 23016 of 2023 (The State of H.P. & Ors. vs. Surajmani & Anr.), has been disposed of with following relevant directions:- “10. It is joint submission of learned counsel for the parties that SLP (C) No. 23016 of 2023 (The State of H.P. & Ors. vs. Surajmani & Anr.), has been disposed of with following relevant directions:- “10. For the cumulative reasons aforestated, we are of the considered view that the dicta laid down by this Court vide order dated 22.07.2019 in Ashwani Kumar's (Supra) case which is based on the judgment of Mool Raj Upadhyaya (Supra) holds the field and would also be applicable to the Respondents herein who had approached the Tribunal or the High Court seeking similar relief. As such, the Respondents shall be entitled for grant of 'work-charged' status from the date of completion of 8 years of service. However, we hold that the relief in the present appeals will be limited to notional benefits as explained in paragraph 3 and 4 of Ashwani Kumar's (Supra) case in Civil Appeal No(s).5753 of 2019 and the present appeals stand disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs. 11. We also make it explicitly clear that the State in its endeavour of implementing the orders of the Tribunal, High Court or this Court, if having paid the amounts in excess, would be at liberty to take such steps as it deems fit without insisting for one time recovery. 12. It is further underscored that this judgment would necessarily be a judgment in rem and the State shall hence forth not take recourse to employing personnel as daily wagers but shall make appointments only in accordance with law, as enumerated in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi, (2006) 4 SCC 1 .” 6. In light of above discussion, this writ petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 19.10.2024 (Annexure P-6) is quashed and set aside. Respondents/competent authority(s) are directed to consider and decide the case of the petitioner afresh in accordance with law and keeping in view the above judgment and also keeping in mind the above discussion. The order so passed be also communicated to the petitioner. 7. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, to also stand disposed of.