IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T) No.: 9103 of 2008. Decided on: 10.03.2011. _________________________________________________ Parkash Chand. … Petitioner. Versus The State of Himachal Pradesh and others. … Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner : None. For the Respondents : Mr. Anshul Bansal, Additional Advocate General with Mr. P.M. Negi, Deputy Advocate General and Mr. R.P. Singh, Assistant Advocate General. Rajiv Sharma, J (Oral). The case of the petitioner, in a nutshell, is that though he had completed the qualifying period of service, he has not been paid the pensionary/retiral benefits. It is evident from the reply filed by the respondents that the petitioner was engaged on daily wages in June, 1985 and he was conferred the work- charged status on 4th June, 1999. His date of birth is 28th March, 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. - 2 - 1941. He has superannuated from service on 31st March, 2001. He has worked on regular (work-charged) basis only for three years and three months. Even if the ratio of Sarab Dayal’s case is applied in this case, the petitioner is only entitled to 5 years daily wage service. In totality, the petitioner has worked only for 8 years and 3 months on regular basis. The minimum qualifying service for pension is 10 years. 2. Consequently, in view of the observations and discussion made hereinabove, there is no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed, so also the pending application(s), if any. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma), Judge. March 10, 2011. (sck).