1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.19516 of 2025 Decided on: 12.12.2025. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Surender Singh …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Ashwani Gupta, Mr. Bonit Thakur, Advocates. For the Respondents: Mr. Vishwadeep Sharma, Additional Advocate General, Mr. Sikander Bhushan and Ms. Menka Raj Chauhan, Deputy Advocates General for respondents No. 1 to 4. Mr. Tek Ram Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.5. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Mr. Vishwadeep Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General and Mr. Tek Ram Sharma, learned counsel, appear and waive service of notice on behalf of the respondents No. 1 to 4 and respondent No.5, respectively. 2. This writ petition has been filed for grant of following substantive reliefs:- 1 Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 “i) That the instructions/policy dated 26th September, 2025, Annexure P-3, may be read down/quashed because the same are contrary to the law. ii) That the respondents may be ordered to pay pension to the petitioner from the date he has been retired from service, with all benefits incidental thereof.” Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he is under instructions to submit that this writ petition be treated to be confined only to the grant of relief No.(ii) i.e. for counting the work charge status rendered by the petitioner as qualifying service for the purpose of pension and that relief No.(i) be treated to have been given up. This writ petition has accordingly been heard as confined to relief No. (ii). 3. In view of settled position in law, the pleadings and submission made by learned counsel for the parties, there is no requirement for calling of reply from the respondents. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, matter is heard at this stage. 4. The case set up by the petitioner is that he was conferred work charge status w.e.f. January, 2011 and he superannuated as Forest Guard on 31.08.2025. For considering the case of petitioner for grant of pension under the Central Civil Services (CCS) Pension Rules, 1972, respondents directed the petitioner to deposit specific sum, 3 which was also deposited by the petitioner. Reference in this regard was made to copies of e-challans placed on record. The petitioner’s grievance is that pension has still not been sanctioned and released in his favour by the respondents on the ground that work charge service is not liable to be counted as qualifying service for the purpose of pension and other retiral benefits. Law in this regard laid down by this Court as also by the Hon’ble Apex Court had been summarized in Naina Devi Vs. State of H.P. and Ors2 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:- 2 CWP No.2960 of 2020, decided on 09.08.2024 4 “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. 5 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. 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 6 the Contributory Pension Scheme will not be applicable to her.” In view of the settled legal position that work charge service qualifies for the purpose of pension, this writ petition is disposed of with direction to respondent No.3/Competent Authority to consider the work charge service rendered by the petitioner as qualifying service for the purpose of sanction and release of pension. Consequent action shall also follow. This exercise be completed in accordance with law within a period for six weeks by the respondents. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua December 12, 2025 Judge yogesh