IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA C.W.P No. 7807 of 2010 Dated of Decision: 13.7.2011. Puran Chand Petitioner. Versus State of H.P & others Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner : Mr. Naresh Kaul, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. A.K Bansal, Addl. A.G. for respondents No. 1 and 2. None for respondent No. 3. ________________________________________________________ Surinder Singh,,J (oral) : By means of present petition, the petitioner has prayed mainly the following relief: “a). That the present writ petition may very kindly be allowed and the petitioner may kindly be held entitled for the pension under the law he has completed more than 20 years of service (10 years and 10 months on regular basis) and the similarly situated employee i.e. Shri. Harbans Lal, regularized on the same date i.e. 1.4.1998 (rendered 9 years and 10 months of regular service) has been held entitled for pension and his case was approved on 22.4.2008 vide letter No. UD- H(B)(10)-952/07-4085 (Annexure P-6).” 2. The petitioner in his petition averred that he joined as Beldar in the month of January, 1988. He was regularized vide order dated 31.12.1998 (Annexure P-1) w.e.f 1.4.1998. On 31.1.2009 after rendering the service of 10 years and 10 months, he retired from the service on attaining the age of superannuation. 3. The petitioner sought information from the respondent Executive Officer of Municipal Corporation with respect to the similarly situated person Sh. Harbans Lal which was supplied to him and placed on record as Annexure P-6. It shows that said Sh. Harbans Lal was also regularized on 1.4.1998 and retired from the service on 31.1.2008 as mason after rendering 9 years 10 months service. The provident fund was also deducted w.e.f 1.4.2000 as in the case of present petitioner. But however, the pension case of Harbans Lal was approved by the Government vide letter No.UD-H(B)(10)-852/07-4085 dated 28.4.2008, whereas the case of petitioner was declined despite the fact that he had rendered 10 years and 10 months of regular service, which is one year more than said Sh. Harbans Lal. The law does not recognize discrimination to similar situate persons. 4. Keeping in view the fact that the petitioner is illiterate and was Class-IV employee, therefore, respondents shall consider the case of the petitioner on parity with that of Harbans Lal within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment and due admissible amount of pension shall be released to him within 3 months thereafter on the basis of parity. 3. The writ petition is disposed of, in the above terms. July 13, 2011 (Surinder Singh), (priti) Judge.