IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 4164 of 2009. Date of decision: 31.5.2010. Hari Singh ….. Petitioner Vs. State of H.P. and others …. Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the petitioner : Ms.Lalita Verma,Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. P.K. Sharma, Addl. Advocate General with Mrs. Shubh Mahajan, Dy. Advocate General, for the respondents. Kuldip Singh, J (Oral) The grievance of the petitioner is that he was engaged as daily waged beldar by the respondents in the year 1991. He was given work charged status by the respondents w.e.f. 10.4.2003 but thereafter the petitioner was given work charged status from 1.1.2001. It has been submitted that the petitioner was retired from service on 31.3.2007. He had filed Original Application before the erstwhile Tribunal praying therein that his retirement after the age of 58 years on the basis of notification dated 11.5.2001 was wrong. The respondents after the receipt of notice of the Original Application from erstwhile Tribunal reinstated the petitioner vide letter date 5.9.2008. The Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes 2 petitioner was ultimately retired from service after attaining the age of 60 years vide letter dated 6.3.2009. It has been submitted that the case of the petitioner for retiral benefits is covered by Division Bench judgment of this Court in State of Himachal Pradesh and others vs. Sarab Dayal, Latest HLJ 2007 (2) HP 1292 for counting half of service of the petitioner rendered by him as daily waged for the purpose of pensionery benefits. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that some arrears of wages /salary have not been paid to him nor the retiral benefits have been paid to him. The petitioner has prayed for a direction to the respondents to pay him this arrears of wages/salary due to the petitioner and also retiral benefits. 2. The respondents No.1 to 3 have filed the reply. It has been submitted that the petitioner was earlier regularized on 10.4.2003 and he was retired on 31.3.2007 in view of Govt. notification dated 10.5.2001. Later on the petitioner was regularized w.e.f. 1.1.2001 after 10 years service as per Govt. decision. The petitioner was allowed to rejoin his duties on 5.9.2008 and he was retired on 31.3.2009 at the age of 60 years. The arrears bill w.e.f. April, 2007 to August, 2008 amounting to Rs.1,32,565/- duly prepared by the Executive Engineer, IPH Division, Karsog was sent to the Treasury Officer, Karsog which was returned with the remarks that copy of judgment may be attachéd. It has been submitted that the matter is being pursued with the Treasury Officer, Karsog. As and when the bill is passed by the Treasury, the payment will be released to the petitioner forthwith. It has also been submitted that petitioner has rendered 9 years and 3 months regular service and at least 10 years 3 regular service is required for pension as per pension Rules. The matter for granting benefit of 50% daily wage service as rendered in Sarab Dayal case is still under litigation in Supreme Court of India, as such the petitioner is not entitled for any pension. 3. It is clear from the reply of the respondents No.1 to 3 that respondents are not disputing the payment of arrears of wages/salary to the petitioner which are due. In fact it has been submitted that the bill was submitted to the Treasury Officer, karsog who returned the bill with the remarks that the copy of the judgment of erstwhile Tribunal may be annexed with the bill. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in fact the Original Application earlier filed by the petitioner in the erstwhile Tribunal was transferred to this Court on abolition of the Tribunal and later on after the reinstatement of the petitioner that petition was dismissed as rendered infructuous. In these circumstances, there is no question for supply of judgment of erstwhile Tribunal to the Treasury Officer, Karsog as stated in the reply of the respondents. 5. Insofar payment of retiral benefits is concerned, according to the respondents Sarab Dayal case is pending before the Apex Court. The learned counsel for petitioner has relied on directions of Division Bench in CWP No. 1808 of 2007 decided on 4.3.2010. The Division Bench in CWP No.1808 of 2007 and other connected matters on 4.3.2010 has passed the following orders:- “Since common question of law and fact is involved in these Writ Petitions, they are being disposed of by a common order. The issue raised in these Writ Petitions pertains to the question whether 50% of the daily waged service rendered by 4 the original applicants can be counted as qualifying service for the purpose of pension. We find that this issue is squarely covered in favour of the original applicants by several judgments of this Court and the one reported as State of Himachal Pradesh and others vs. Sarab Dayal,Latest HLJ 2007 (1) HP 1292. The learned Senior Additional Advocate General submits that the State has pursued the matter before the Supreme Court and the matter is now pending before the Supreme Court. But we find that in the Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 362 of 2008 filed against the judgment of this Court in CWP No. 180 of 2001, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has directed the State to comply with the impugned order. However, the matter is still pending before the Supreme Court. Since the order has been implemented in the case of several applicants, of course, subject to the final outcome of the matter pending before the Supreme Court, it is only appropriate that the same course of action is followed in the case of original applicants in these cases also. Therefore, these Writ Petitions are disposed of directing the State to extend the benefit of 50% of the daily waged service rendered by the original Applicants as qualifying service for the purpose of pension, however, making it clear that the implementation of the order is subject to the outcome of the Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 362 of 2008 and the other connected matters. Some of the learned counsel appearing for the original applicants submit that in some cases the original applicant(s) had died. But death will not take away the benefit otherwise admissible to the original applicant(s) and needless to point out that the benefit will be available to the legal heirs of such original applicants. The needful shall be done within a period of one month from the date of production of a copy of this judgment. All these Writ Petitions stand disposed of, so also pending applications, if any”. 6. The learned Addl. Advocate General has not disputed that insofar payment of retiral benefits in the present case is concerned that is covered by the judgment dated 4.3.2010 passed in CWP No.1808 of 2007. 7. In view of above, the petition is allowed. The respondents No.1 to 3 are directed to pay arrears of wages/salary for the period of April, 2008 to August, 2008 to the petitioner within a period of three months from today and within the same period the respondents shall pay the retiral benefits to the petitioner in the terms of judgment dated 4.3.2010 passed by the Division Bench in CWP No.1808 of 2007 and other connected matters. 5 CMP No. 7690 of 2009 8. Infructuous in view of disposal of the main petition. May 31, 2010 (sks) ( Kuldip Singh ) Judge