2025:HHC:3597 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.380 of 2025 Decided on: 27th February, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Prithvi Chand …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Bonit Thakur, Advocate vice Mr. A.K. Gupta, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. L.N. Sharma, Additional Advocate General, for respondents No.1 to 3. Mr. Tek Ram Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.4. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Mr. L.N. Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General and Mr. Tek Ram Sharma, learned counsel, appear and waive service of notice on behalf of respondents No.1 to 3 and respondent No.4, respectively. 2. Considering the facts pleaded in the writ petition and the relief claimed on that basis, reply is not required to be called for from the respondents. 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 2025:HHC:3597 3. The pleadings in the writ petition are that:- 3(i). Petitioner was engaged as Animal Attendant in the respondent-Animal Husbandry Department in the year 1993. His services were regularized in June, 2006. 3(ii). Petitioner preferred a writ petition in the year 2012 claiming work charge status on completion of 10 years of service. The said writ petition was disposed of in terms of the law laid down in Mool Raj Upadhyaya Versus State of H.P. and others2. The respondents rejected petitioner’s claim. 3(iii). Feeling aggrieved against the rejection of his claim, petitioner again preferred a Civil Writ Petition, being CWP No.8116 of 2022. Pursuant to the decision of the said writ petition, respondents issued an office order on 13.04.2023, granting work charge status to the petitioner w.e.f. 01.01.2003 upto 10.07.2006 (date of regularization of petitioner’s services). 3(iv). Petitioner retired from service in April, 2022. 4. Petitioner’s claim is that he having now been granted work charge status w.e.f. 01.01.2003 upto 10.07.2006 and having been regularized thereafter, is entitled for pension. That the petitioner cannot be denied 2 1994 Supp (2) SCC 316 3 2025:HHC:3597 pension under the Old Pension Scheme as he is deemed to have been appointed prior to 15.05.2003, which was the cut-off date assigned by the respondent-State for enforcement of the New Pension Scheme. 5. Petitioner’s claim based upon the facts asserted in the writ petition has merit. It is by now well settled that work charge status is liable to be counted towards grant of pension/pensionary benefits. Petitioner having been conferred work charge status w.e.f. 01.01.2003, i.e. the date prior to the cut-off date 15.05.2003, would definitely fall under the Old Pension Scheme, however, it is for the respondents to verify the facts and thereafter apply the settled legal position to the facts. In view of above, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the factual position outlined by the petitioner in this writ petition and examine the same vis-à-vis applicable legal position. In case upon consideration of the case of the petitioner vis-à-vis applicable legal position, he is found entitled to pension, the same be paid to him as per law. The entire exercise be carried out in accordance with law within a period of six weeks from today. 4 2025:HHC:3597 The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua February 27, 2025 Judge Mukesh