( 2025:HHC:14459 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWPOA No. 3191 of 2019 along with CWPOA Nos. 176 of 2019, 5826 of 2020, 5878 of 2020, 5881 of 2020, 5883 of 2020, 5885 of 2020, 6279 of 2020, 6519 of 2020, 6561 of 2020, 6658 of 2020 and 6785 of 2020. Reserved on : 9 th May, 2025. Decided on : 19 th May, 2025. 1. CWPOA No. 3191 of 2019. Bhanwar Singh & Ors. ...Petitioners. Versus State of H.P. & Ors. ....Respondents. 2. CWPOA No. 176 of 2019. Chet Ram & Ors. ...Petitioners. Versus State of H.P. & Ors. ....Respondents. 3. CWPOA No. 5826 of 2020. Jag Mohan & Ors. ...Petitioners. Versus State of H.P. & Ors. ....Respondents. 4. CWPOA No. 5878 of 2020. Sewa Nand & Ors. ...Petitioners. Versus State of H.P. & Ors. ....Respondents. 5. CWPOA No. 5881 of 2020. 2 ( 2025:HHC:14459 ) Babu Ram & Ors. ...Petitioners. Versus State of H.P. & Ors. ....Respondents. 6. CWPOA No. 5883 of 2020. Dinesh Kumar & Ors. ...Petitioners. Versus State of H.P. & Ors. ....Respondents. 7. CWPOA No. 5885 of 2020. Daya Ram & Ors. ...Petitioners. Versus State of H.P. & Ors. ....Respondents. 8. CWPOA No. 6279 of 2020. Manohar Lal & Ors. ...Petitioners. Versus State of H.P. & Ors. ....Respondents. 9. CWPOA No. 6519 of 2020. Om Prakash & Ors. ...Petitioners. Versus State of H.P. & Ors. ....Respondents. 10. CWPOA No. 6561 of 2020. Tirath Singh & Ors. ...Petitioners. Versus State of H.P. & Ors. ....Respondents. 11. CWPOA No. 6658 of 2020. Ravi Prakash & Ors. ...Petitioners. 3 ( 2025:HHC:14459 ) Versus State of H.P. & Ors. ....Respondents. 12. CWPOA No. 6785 of 2020. Desh Raj Chaudhary & Ors. ...Petitioners. Versus State of H.P. & Ors. ....Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Rakesh K. Dogra, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Baldev Singh Negi, Addl.A.G.. for the respondents-State. Mr. Imran Khan, Advocate, for the Milk Federation. Satyen Vaidya, Judge. Since common questions of facts and law arise, all these petitions have been heard and are being decided together by a common judgment. 2. Petitioners were initially engaged as daily wage Beldars in the department of Animal Husbandry, Govt. of Himachal Pradesh. The Joint Director, Animal Husbandry vide order dated 01.07.1992 terminated the services of the petitioners along with others w.e.f. 30.06.1992 with direction 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 4 ( 2025:HHC:14459 ) to join and report in the office of respondent No.3 i. e. H.P. State Cooperative Milk Producers’ Federation Limited (for short “Milkfed”) w.e.f. 01.07.1992. Petitioners accordingly joined the Milk Federation w.e.f. 01.07.1992. 3. As per the petitioners they had no option but to comply with the directions issued to them, otherwise they would have been rendered jobless. The petitioners had already served the department of Animal Husbandry for period ranging between 1 to 4 years. 4. Later, the services of the petitioners were regularized by the Milkfed. The petitioners are claiming pensionary benefits on the ground that their services with the Milkfed be deemed to be on deputation and they be treated to be employees of Animal Husbandry as has been held by this Court in the case of A.N. Gupta vs. State of H.P. & Ors., CWP(T) No. 9602 of 2008, decided on 11.03.2011. 5. Petitioners have further contended that respondents No.1 and 2 had taken a conscious decision vide notification dated 14.09.1983 to transfer the dairy development activities of Animal Husbandry Department in six Districts i.e. Shimla, Mandi, Solan Bilaspur, Sirmaur and Hamirpur, to the Milkfed. Under the said arrangement a specific condition was that service conditions of employees 5 ( 2025:HHC:14459 ) who were transferred to the Milkfed would not be less advantageous. As per the petitioners, the Animal Husbandry Department transferred dairy development activities of remaining districts to Milkfed in the year 1992 and in pursuance thereof, the petitioners were compelled to join the services of Milkfed. 6. It is averred by the petitioners that the judgment in A.N. Gupta (supra) has attained finality as having been affirmed by a Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 03.03.2012 in LPA No. 504 of 2011 and further affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide judgment dated 01.05.2017 in Special Leave to Appeal © No. 19650 of 2012. 7. Respondents No.1 and 2 are stated to have implemented the aforesaid judgment. The petitioners also represented to the respondents to grant them the same pensionary benefits as have been granted to the petitioners in A.N. Gupta’s case (supra) but their representations have been rejected. Hence, these petitions. 8. Respondents No.1 and 2 have filed their reply and have contested the claim of the petitioners. It has been submitted that the petitions are hopelessly time barred. The services of the petitioners were terminated by the Animal Husbandry Department on 01.07.1992 and they have filed the 6 ( 2025:HHC:14459 ) instant petitions in the year 2018. It has also been submitted that the judgment in A.N. Gupta’s case has been implemented vide notification dated 06.01.2018 only qua those employees who were initially appointed on regular basis in Animal Husbandry Department and were permanently absorbed in the Milkfed. The claim of the petitioners has been denied on the ground that they were initially engaged as daily wage Beldars and their such services were not liable to be counted for the purpose of pensionary benefits under the CCS Pension Rules, 1972. 9. The Milkfed has also filed its separate reply. Its defence is also pari materia the same as that of respondents No.1 and 2. 10. Petitioners have filed rejoinder and have contended that the petitioners are entitled to the pensionary benefits on the same analogy on which the benefit has been granted to the petitioners in A.N. Gupta’s case. As per the petitioners, they were being paid their wages from contingency, therefore, half of the services paid from contingency are liable to be counted for the purpose of pension at the time of absorption in regular appointment as per Rule 14 of the CCS Pension Rules, 1972. Reference has also been made to the judgment passed by the Hon’ble 7 ( 2025:HHC:14459 ) Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 6309 of 2017, titled as Sunder Singh vs. State of H.P. & Ors, decided on 08.03.2018 wherein according to the petitioner it has been held that the daily wage service of five years will be treated equal to one year of regular service for the purpose of pension. 11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the entire record carefully. 12. Since, the petitioners are seeking benefit of the judgment passed by this Court in a bunch of matters with CWP(T) No. 9602 of 2008, titled as A.N. Gupta & Ors. vs. State of H.P. & Ors. as lead case, it will be necessary to take into account the facts of the said case. It is revealed that the petitioners in A.N. Gupta’s case and connected matters were appointed on temporary basis in the Animal Husbandry Department. Respondents No.1 and 2 had taken a conscious decision vide notification dated 14.09.1983 to transfer the dairy development activities of Animal Husbandry in six districts i.e. Shimla, Mandi, Solan, Bilaspur, Sirmour and Hamirpur, to the Milkfed. Notification dated 14.09.1983 was issued in this behalf. The Director, Animal Husbandry had invited options from the employees who were serving in the Animal Husbandry Department and were ready and willing to be absorbed in the Milkfed. 8 ( 2025:HHC:14459 ) 13. Accordingly, the petitioners in A. N. Gupta’s case (supra) and connected matters joined the Milkfed. They subsequently made representation for granting them pension but the same was rejected on the ground that they were not confirmed employees at the time of transfer to Milkfed. 14. In the aforesaid backdrop of facts, a coordinate bench of this Court vide judgment dated 11.03.2011 held that the petitioners in those cases had joined the Milkfed on the assurance that the terms and conditions of their services would not be less advantageous. The action of the respondents in not granting the pension to the petitioner in those cases was held to be arbitrary and unreasonable. Accordingly, all the petitions were allowed. Respondents No.1 and 2 were directed to pay and release the pension to the petitioners and similarly situate persons, along with interest @6% per annum, within a period of three months. 15. Indisputably, the aforesaid judgment attained the finality after being affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Respondents No.1 and 2 issued notification dated 06.01.2018 implementing the aforesaid judgment. 16. In the case of petitioners, the facts are identical save and except that the petitioners in A.N. Gupta’s case and connected matters, were appointed on temporary basis in 9 ( 2025:HHC:14459 ) Animal Husbandry department and the petitioners herein were daily wage employees. The respondents have not contested the plea of the petitioners that the procedure adopted in their case of termination of services from Animal Husbandry department with direction to join the Milkfed on the next date was akin to the procedure adopted in the case of petitioners in A.N. Gupta’s case and connected matters. The only difference being that in the case of the petitioners in A.N. Gupta and Others, the decision was taken in the year 1983 to transfer the dairy development activities of Animal Husbandry department to the Milkfed in respect of six districts (i.e. Shimla, Mandi, Solan, Bilaspur, Sirmour and Hamirpur) and the same decision for other six districts has been implemented in the year 1992 whereby the petitioners have been affected. 17. It cannot be ignored that the State Government since long has formulated repeatedly policies to regularise the services of the daily wagers having rendered continuous daily wage service. The services of the petitioners were also regularized by the Milkfed by taking into consideration the daily wage services rendered by them in Animal Husbandry department. This factual aspect has also not been controverted by the respondents. Had the petitioners not 10 ( 2025:HHC:14459 ) been compelled to join Milkfed, they would also have been regularized in the Animal Husbandry department with the passage of time, in such event they would have been entitled to the pensionary benefits. 18. The plea of the petitioners that they were compelled to join the Milkfed also appears to be genuine and bonafide for the reason that they would not have willingly accepted to join the Milkfed had they been made aware about their services with the Milkfed being less advantageous. The petitioners had the every reason to believe that they would be treated equally with those incumbents whose services were transferred in the year 1983 from department of Animal Husbandry to Milkfed. 19. As regards the objection of limitation, the same also deserves to be rejected for the simple reason that the respondents had implemented the judgment in A. N. Gupta’s case (supra) on 06.01.2018. Even otherwise, the claim of the petitioners is with respect to pensionary benefits, the denial of which is a continuing wrong. 20. In light of the above discussion, all the petitions are allowed and the respondents No.1 and 2 are directed to grant all the pensionary benefits to the petitioners herein as have been granted to the petitioners in the case of A. N. 11 ( 2025:HHC:14459 ) Gupta & Ors. vs. State of H.P. & Ors., CWP(T) No. 9602 of 2008, decided on 11.03.2011. The entire exercise shall be completed within 12 weeks from the date of passing of this judgment. Petition is accordingly disposed of. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Satyen Vaidya) Judge 19th May, 2025. (jai)