IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.5248 of 2022 Date of decision: 01.03.2025 Bir Chand. ...Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. & Ors. ...Respondents. Coram: Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioner : Mr. Bonit Prakash, Advocate. For the respondents : Ms. Leena Guleria, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents No.1 to 3-State. : Mr. Tek Ram Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.4. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Petitioner seeks directions to the respondents to sanction pension in his favour. 2. The case set-up is that petitioner was engaged on daily wage basis in the year 1994; His services were regularized in the year 2007; Petitioner retired from service on 31.03.2015. Petitioner specifically asserts that as per the order passed by the learned erstwhile State Administrative Tribunal on 26.07.2016 in OA No.5191 of 2015 (Bir Chand vs. State of H.P.), he had been conferred work-charge status w.e.f. 01.01.2002. 1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes -2- Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that on confirment of work-charge status w.e.f. 01.01.2002, petitioner has to be deemed to have qualifying service which would earn him pension since period of work-charge service is to be counted towards pension. 3. Petitioner has not placed on record any document showing confirment of work-charge status upon him w.e.f. 01.01.2002. The respondents in their reply have disputed the factual assertions of the petitioner. According to the respondents, petitioner was not even engaged on daily-wage basis; He was only engaged as whole-time contingent paid Chowkidar in Development Block Nagrota Bagwan w.e.f. 01.09.1994. His services were regularized on 05.10.2010; Subsequently, respondents passed another office order on 24.02.2020, regularizing petitioner’s services as per notification dated 04.07.2009. It is further case of the respondents that pursuant to the directions issued by learned erstwhile State Administrative Tribunal on 26.07.2016 in OA No.5161 of 2015, petitioner’s case for grant of work-charge status was considered but vide order dated 11.12.2019, it was rejected, as he was whole-time -3- contingent paid worker since inception and not daily wage worker. 4. From the pleadings, it is manifestly clear that respondents have denied conferring work-charge status upon the petitioner. There is no document on record in support of petitioner’s contention that he had been conferred work- charge status w.e.f. 01.01.2002. That being the position, petitioner having served for about 8 years on regular basis cannot held entitled to pension under CCS (Pension) Rules. Petitioner has not been able to support and prove his pleaded case. The relief prayed for by the petitioner cannot be granted to him on the basis of pleaded case . Hence, there is no merit in the writ petition. The same is accordingly dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, to stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua 1st March, 2025 Judge (Pardeep)