HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. LPA No. 89 of 2010 Date of Decision: September 20, 2011 State of H.P. & Anr. ……. Appellants Versus Madan Lal & Ors. …….. Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. For the appellants : Mr. R. K. Bawa, A.G. with Mr. Ankush Dass Sood, Addl. A.G. and Mr. J. K. Verma, Dy. A.G. For respondent No.1 : Mr. Inder Sharma, vice Mr. N.K. Thakur, Advocate For respondent No.2 : Mr. Subhash Sharma, Advocate For respondent No.3 : Mr. D. K. Khanna, Advocate Sanjay Karol, J. (oral) Petitioner filed Original application (No. 2383/2006) before the erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, inter alia, praying for the following reliefs:- “I) That the respondents may very kindly be directed to consider the case of the applicant for the grant of pension and other pensionary benefits as per CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 by granting him the benefit of Government of India decision as contained in Annexure A-4 as well as in the light of the judgment rendered by this Hon’ble Tribunal in Sarbdayal versus State of HP case (supra) forthwith or in the 2 alternative to grant him pension equivalent to gratuity. II) That the respondents may very kindly be directed to grant the service gratuity in accordance with Rule 49(I) of the CCS (Pension) Rules in the interest of justice and fair play. III) That the respondents may very kindly further be directed to release the GPF amount forthwith.” 2. By virtue of the provisions of The Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal (Transfer of decided and pending Cases and Applications) Act, 2008 (No.14 of 2008), the same was transferred to this Court and re-numbered as CWP(T) No. 13880/2008. In terms of impugned judgment dated 8.3.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court, the same stands allowed with the directions that service rendered by the petitioner on daily wage basis be counted for the purpose of pension with all consequential action. 3. It is not in dispute that petitioner is not an employee of the State. In fact he is an employee of the Industrial Area Development Agency which is an autonomous body and a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. Service conditions of the employees of the Society are governed by it by law and regulations. It stands clarified by the Government that society is an autonomous body over which State has got no control financial or otherwise. That a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against a society over which State has got no control, financial or otherwise, is not maintainable, is now well settled. 3 4. Decision rendered by this Court in State of H.P. and others vs. Sarab Dayal, CWP No.180 of 2001, decided on 19.2.2007, which is applicable only to the employees of the State cannot be extended to the petitioner. As such, appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment is set aside. 5. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice. ( Justice Sanjay Karol ), Judge. September 20, 2011 (rana)