IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA. CWP No. 382 of 2003 Date of Decision : June 19, 2008 Municipal Council, Dharamshala …Petitioner. Versus: Saran Dass & another …Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice R. B. Misra, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes For the petitioner: Mr. A. K. Vashistha, Advocate. For respondent 1 : Mr. Ashutosh Burathoki, Advocate. For respondent No. 2 : Mr. R. M. Bisht, Dy. A. G R. B. Misra, J. (Oral) The present writ petition has been preferred against the order dated 18.12.2002 passed by learned Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Sub Office Dharamshala (in short called ‘Ld. Tribunal’) in O.A.(D) No. 222/2002, whereby the directions were issued to regularize the service of respondent No.1 after completing ten years of service only for the purpose of pensionary benefits and thereafter counting half of his past service as daily rated worker and full service as regularized worker and then to pay the pensionary benefits with interest so worked out. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2. It appears respondent No.1 filed the above original application seeking directions to petitioner herein to pay the pensionary benefits to him for the long service rendered by him. Learned Tribunal after taking into consideration the averments made in the original application and rival contentions advanced on behalf of the Municipal Council and after making appreciation of facts that respondent No.1 was initially engaged as Beldar on daily wages in the year 1982 and thereafter worked continuously as such till February 17, 1998 when his services were regularized as per the policy framed by the Govt. of Himachal Pradesh and has continued upto March 31, 2002 i.e. till his superannuation without any pensionary benefits and taking into consideration that respondent No.1 had put in 16 years of service as daily wages employee and 4 years 3 months as regular employee, the direction as indicated above vide impugned order dated 18.12.2002 has been passed by the learned Tribunal. 3. According to learned counsel for the petitioner keeping in view the prayer of respondent No.1, directions for regularization cannot be passed by learned Tribunal in view of the decision of Supreme Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka & others v. Uma Devi and others (2006(4) SCC 1). Learned counsel for the petitioner/Municipal Council has fairly submitted that the C.C.S. (Pension) Rules, 1972 as applicable to the employees of the State Government is also applicable to the Municipal Council, as such, the employees of Municipal Council 3 have also been extended the same benefits as applicable to the Govt. employees under C.C.S. (Pension) Rules and respondent No.1 since has already been regularized on 17.2.1998 under the policy framed by the State of Himachal Pradesh, however, specific direction for making regularization dehors the observations of Supreme Court in Uma Devi (supra) cannot be given by this Court. 4. On the other hand, as submitted for respondent No.1, he is entitled to be regularized in view of the decision of Supreme Court in Mool Raj Upadhyaya v. State of H.P. & others (1994 (Suppl. 2) SCC 316) and in view of the decision in State of H.P. v. Gehar Singh reported in Latest HLJ 2007(1) SC 363. As submitted by learned counsel for respondent No.1 in view of the decision of this High Court (DB) in State of H.P. & Others v. Sarb Dayal (2007 (Supp.) Current Law Journal (H.P.) Page 505), the employee of Municipal Council is entitled to the benefit of pension, by giving him the benefit of half of the service rendered as daily rated worker. According to learned counsel for respondent No.1, in view of the decision of Mool Raj Upadhyaya (supra), respondent No.1 may be regularized from the year 1994 itself and such direction may safely be given so that benefits of pension may be extended to respondent No.1. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the records. In our considered view since respondent No.1 has already been regularized on 17th February 1998, in view of the prevailing policy of the State of Himachal 4 Pradesh and since the C.C.S (Pension) Rules, 1972 regarding pensionary matters is applicable to the employees of Municipal Council also and the same is also to be extended to respondent No.1. However, in view of the observations of the Supreme Court in Uma Devi (supra), the specific direction for regularization cannot be given by Court in favour of respondent No.1. Therefore, Learned Tribunal was not legally correct to give a direction to the Municipal Council to regularize the service of respondent No.1 after completing ten years of service only for the purpose of pensionary benefits. In the facts and circumstances, it can only be said that keeping in view the fact that respondent No. 1 has already been regularized on 17th February, 1998 and keeping in view that he has already rendered 16 years service as daily wage employee and 4 years 3 months as regular employee, then after extending the benefit of Sarb Dayal (supra), the grievance of respondent No.1 may be given regarding extending him the benefit of pension. 6. In view of the above observations, the order dated 18.12.2002 passed in O.A.(D) No. 222/2002, is dealt with and modified and the writ petition is partly allowed accordingly. ( R. B. Misra ), Judge. ( Sanjay Karol ), Judge. June 19, 2008 (rana)