IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No. 2090 of 2009 Date of decision: 22.07.2011 ________________________________________________________________ Sudama Ram & another. .....Petitioners. Versus State of H.P. and others. .....Respondents. Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, J. 1 Whether approved for reporting? No. ________________________________________________________________ For the petitioner: Mr. Abahyender Gupta, Advocate, vice Mr. A.K. Gaupta, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Vinod Thakur, Dy. AG. V.K. Sharma, J. (Oral). The petition has been filed on the following substantive prayers vide para 8(i), (ii) and (iii): “8(i) That a writ of mandamus may kindly be issued to the respondents to count half of the daily wage service towards regular service for the payment of gratuity to the petitioners in accordance with the Pension Rules and the respondents may be ordered to pay the said amount of gratuity to the petitioners with 8% interest thereon from the date of retirement with all the benefits incidental thereof such as arrears etc. (ii) That in the alternative the respondents may be ordered to pay the gratuity amount to the petitioners for the period they worked on daily wage basis as per the provisions of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. (iii) That record of the case may be summoned in the interest of justice.” 2. In reply, the respondents have taken the following stand vide para 3 on merits: “3 In reply to this para it is submitted that cases of the petitioners for sanction of retirement dues under CCS Pension Rules 1972 were sent to Sr. Dy. Accountant General (A&E) HP. Shimla vide Divisional Forest Officer Kunihar Letter No. 1402 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. ...2... dated 31.05.07 and No. 488 dated 24.4.07 on receipt of authorization from the competent authority payment of retirement gratuity was released to the petitioner No. 1 and 2 accordingly. Regarding counting of half of contingent service, it is stated that petitioners were not being paid wages rates from contingencies. It is further submitted that payment of wages to the petitioners were being paid out of the budget/funds allotted for execution of seasonal forestry works. The wages of petitioners were never paid from contingencies nor any budget is provided for the contingent/work charged post in forest department. Hence case of petitioners do not fall within the preview of CCS Pension Rules, 1972.” 3. The learned vice counsel for the petitioners submit at the very outset that the case of the petitioners is covered under judgment dated 09.05.2007 of this Court in CWP No. 150 of 2004, titled State of H.P. vs. Lashkari Ram. 4. In view of the above, if on facts, the case of the petitioners is covered under the judgment referred to hereinabove, in CWP No.150 of 2004, and they are similarly situate, they shall also be treated similarly without any discrimination and the benefit of the said judgment shall be extended to them alongwith consequential benefits, if any, within two months from the date of production of copies of this judgment and the judgment referred to hereinabove by the petitioners. 5. The petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also pending CMP(s), if any. (V.K. Sharma) Judge 22nd July, 2011 (virender)