judgment : Ajay Mohan Goel, J. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs:- “(i) That the impugned order dated 26.10.2021 contained in Annexure P-3 may kindly be quashed and set aside by issuing a writ in the nature of certiorari. (ii) That the respondents may kindly be directed to grant full pension to the petitioner after 01.01.2018 alongwith arrears and interest @ 12% per annum by issuing a writ of mandamus.” 2. There is a very short controversy involved in the present writ petition. The case of the petitioner is that he was initially engaged as a Daily wager on 26.04.1987. He was conferred work charge status with effect from 14.11.2002. His services were regularized on 09.01.2010 and he retired on 31.05.2012. The petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 26.10.2021 (Annexure P-3), in terms whereof, he has been denied grant of pension, by assigning the following reasons:- “3. The record of the case has been perused. The gist of the orders passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil appeal No. 6309 of 2017 titled as Sunder Singh Vs the State of HP is as under: 4. "Since the applicants have not rendered the requisite 10 years of service they have been denied pension. 5. Even though strictly construing the Rules, the appellants may not be entitled to pension. However, reading the rules consistent with Articles 14,38 and 39 of the Constitution of India and applying the doctrine of proportionate equality, we are of the view that they are entitled to weightage of service rendered as daily wagers towards regular service e for the purpose of pension. 6. Accordingly, we direct that w.e.f. 01.01.2018, the appellants or other similarly placed Class-IV employees will be entitled to pension if they been duly regularized and have been completed total eligible service for more than 10 years. Daily wage service of 5 years will be treated equal to one year of regular service for pension. If on that basis, their services are more than 8 years but less than 10 years; their service will be reckoned as ten years. In the instant matter the services of the Petitioner were regularized on 09.01.2010 and he retired from the services of the HPSEB Ltd. on 31.5.2012 after rendition of regular service of 2 years, 4 months and 12 days. In the instant matter the services of the Petitioner were regularized on 09.01.2010 and he retired from the services of the HPSEB Ltd. on 31.5.2012 after rendition of regular service of 2 years, 4 months and 12 days. In case we grant him the benefit of the service rendered by him on daily rated basis for a period of 12 years in that event aiso by taking 5 years dally rated service equivalent to 1 year regular service, his total regular service works out to 4 years 4 months and 12 days only and consequently the Petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of pension as per the judgement of the Hon'ble Apex Court. Moreover, the Instructions of the Govt. further provides that the benefit of the grant of pension is not admissible to such of those employees who have been regularized after 15.5.2003 whereafter the pensionary establishment was dispensed with. IN VIEW OF ABOVE, the claim of the Petitioner being devoid of merits deserves to be and is hereby rejected as the case of the Petitioner is not similar and akin to the case of Sunder Singh nor it is covered by the instructions issued by the Finance Department.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that in the present case, there is a glaring mistake committed by the Authority by passing the impugned order and the same is that the work charge service rendered by the petitioner has been totally ignored while considering him for the receipt of pension. By referring to the impugned order, learned counsel submitted that the Authority has taken into consideration the daily wage service rendered by the petitioner as also the regular service, but has totally missed out the work charge service rendered by him. By referring to the judgment of the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in CWP No. 2384 of 2018, titled State of Himachal Pradesh & Others Vs. Sh. Matwar Singh & Another, decided on 18.12.2018, learned counsel argued that in terms of said judgment, the work charge period rendered by an employee has to be taken into consideration for pensionary benefits and accordingly, he submitted that as the impugned order was passed by ignoring the law on the issue settled by this Court as also the period rendered by the petitioner on work charge service, the present petition be allowed by setting aside the imputed order dated 26.10.2021. 4. On the other hand, the stand of the respondents is that there is no infirmity in the order passed by the Authority and the petition has no merit. Learned counsel for the respondents by referring to the reply filed by the respondents, submitted that in the present case, as the petitioner was not having requisite regular service so as to render him eligible for grant of pension even by giving benefit of daily wage service, in terms of the law declared by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Balo Devi Vs. State of H.P. & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 4792 of 2022, decided on 18.07.2022 and Sunder Singh Vs. The State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 6309 of 2017, decided on 08.03.2018, as the petitioner was not coming in the zone so as to render him eligible to receive pension, his case was rightly rejected by the Competent Authority. Accordingly, he submitted that as there is no merit in the present petition, the same be dismissed. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully gone through the records as well as the documents appended therewith. I have also gone through the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner of the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in State of Himachal Pradesh & Others Vs. Sh. Matwar Singh & Another (supra). 6. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was initially engaged on daily wage basis on 26.04.1987. It is also not in dispute that he was conferred work charge status on 14.11.2002. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner was regularized on 09.01.2010 and he retired on 31.05.2012. In this backdrop, if one peruses the impugned order passed by the Authority, one finds that in Para-3 of the said order, there is no reference of the work charge service rendered by the petitioner while deciding the case of the petitioner. It appears that either erroneously or otherwise, the Authority failed to take into consideration the period for which the petitioner worked on work charge basis with the Authority. Had that period been taken into consideration, which is almost of over nine years, the petitioner could not have been denied pension. This is more so for the reason that the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in State of Himachal Pradesh & Others Vs. Sh. Had that period been taken into consideration, which is almost of over nine years, the petitioner could not have been denied pension. This is more so for the reason that the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in State of Himachal Pradesh & Others Vs. Sh. Matwar Singh & Another (supra), has been pleased to hold as under:- “3. 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 2012, 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.” 7. Accordingly, in light of above findings, as the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law, this petition is allowed. Order dated 26.10.2021 (Annexure P-3) is quashed and set aside and the respondents are directed to grant pension to the petitioner with effect from 01.01.2018, in terms of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Balo Devi’s and Sunder Singh’s case (supra). Let arrears be paid to the petitioner within a period of three months and regular pension be now paid to the petitioner with effect from the month of May, 2026. 8. The petition is disposed of in above terms. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.