IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.4341 of 2024 Date of Decision: 03.07.2025 _______________________________________________________ Uttam Sain Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & others … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 Yes. For the Petitioner: Mr. C.N.Singh, Dr. Nidhi Singh, Mr. Devender K. Sharma, Mr. Anshul Gandhi and Mr. Ramesh Kumar, Advocates. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol and Mr. B.C.Verma, Additional Advocate Generals and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): CMP No. 14882 of 2025 For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed and documents intended to be placed on record are ordered to be taken on record. The application stands disposed of. CWP No.4341 of 2024 2. By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- “(i) Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction as this Hon’ble Court deems fit by directing the respondents department to treat the retirement age of the petitioner as on 30.09.2013( 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 i.e.60 years) for all intents and purposes within time bound manner; (ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction by directing the respondents department to re-fix the pay of the petitioner accordingly and arrear in this regard be released in favour of the petitioner alongwith 12% interest within time bound manner’ (iii) Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction by directing the respondents department to re-fix/pay, the retiral benefits of the petitioner such as pension, gratuity, leave encashment etc. w.e.f.1.10.2013 and release the same to the petitioner within time bound manner alongwith 12% interest for delayed payment.” 3. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. Devender K. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, is that though petitioner was entitled to be granted pension w.e.f.01.10.2013, but he has been wrongly granted pension w.e.f.01.01.2018 in terms of judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.6309 of 2017 titled Sunder Singh vs. The State of Himachal Pradesh and others, whereas the case of the petitioner ought to have been considered in light of judgment passed by the Full Bench of this Court in CWP No. 2711 of 2017, titled Baldev Singh versus State of Himachal Pradesh alongwith other connected matters, wherein it has been held that all Class-IV employees, who were engaged prior to 3 10.05.2001 shall be deemed to have retired on attaining the age of 60 years. 4. Precisely, the facts relevant for adjudication of the case at hand, as emerge from the pleadings adduced on record by the respective parties, are that petitioner was appointed as Beldar in the respondent-Department in the year, 1995 and his services were subsequently regularized in the year, 2006 after completion of more than 12 years of continuous daily wage service with 240 days in each calendar year. After his being regularized, petitioner was also granted work charge status w.e.f.01.01.2003 by the respondent-Department in terms of judgment dated 28.07.2010 passed by this Court in CWP No. 2735 of 2010, tilted Rakesh Kumar vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others (Annexure P-1). On 30.09.2011, petitioner retired from the service as Beldar after attaining the age of superannuation i.e. 58 years. Since petitioner had not completed 10 years qualifying service at the time of his retirement on 30.09.2011, but he had rendered service more than nine years eight months, he approached this Court by way of CWP No. 2956 of 2019, titled Uttam Sain versus State of Himachal Pradesh, seeking therein direction to the respondents to grant him benefit of judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in Sunder Singh’s case(supra), wherein it specifically came to be ruled that five years of daily wage service of an employee 4 is required to be counted as one year complete service for the purpose of pension and if on that basis, the total service is more than eight years, same shall be treated as ten years, if it is so, he/she shall be granted pension, if otherwise eligible w.e.f. 01.01.2018. 5. Vide judgment dated 13.07.2021 passed by Division Bench of this Court in Uttam Sain case (supra), this Court directed the respondents to immediately grant the benefit of judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.6309 of 2017, titled Sunder Singh vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others to the petitioners and to release the amount of pension due to them w.e.f.01.01.2018 with interest at the rate of 9% per annum within a period of four weeks from the date of passing of order. In compliance of aforesaid order, respondents forwarded the pension paper of the petitioner to the Office of Accountant General, Himachal Pradesh, which issued pension payment order dated 6.11.2023 (Annexure A-1) annexed with CMP No. 14882 of 2025, thereby authorizing pension to the petitioner w.e.f. 01.01.2018 considering petitioner to have completed more than 10 years service while extending the benefit of judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in Sunder Singh’s case(supra). 6. Most importantly, Office of Accountant General, Himachal Pradesh, while issuing aforesaid PPO No.1123146352 appended 5 note below the pension payment order, copy whereof was sent to the respondent-State that “as per Govt. Finance letter No. FIN (C)A(3)- 2/2013, dated 28.04.2023 the Class-IV employee, who have actually been retired prior to the issuance of notification dated 21.02.2018 at the age of 58 years shall be deemed to have retired on the date when they otherwise attains the age of 60 years. This may be reviewed.” By way of appending aforesaid note though Office of Accountant General apprised the respondent-State that in view of law laid down by Full Bench of this Court in Baldev Singh’s case(supra), whereby it has been held that Class-IV employees shall be deemed to have been retired at the age 60 years, case of the petitioner needs to be reviewed. Since no steps, if any, were ever taken at the behest of the respondents to review the pension order of the petitioner, petitioner approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein for the reliefs, as have been reproduced hereinabove. 7. In nutshell, case of the petitioner is that in terms of judgment passed by Full Bench of this Court in Baldev Singh’s case (supra), wherein it came to be held that retirement age for Class-IV employees, who have been engaged prior to 10.05.2001 and regularized subsequently shall be 60 years and their pay fixation shall be done on notional basis, but retiral benefit such as pension, gratuity 6 and leave encashment are required to be released accordingly by the respondent-Department. 8. Admittedly, in the case at hand, petitioner was engaged prior to 10.05.2001, if it is so, he shall be deemed to have retired after attaining age of 60 years. 9. At this stage, it would be apt to take note of office order dated 7.12.2023, issued by Executive Engineer, B&R Division, HPPWD, Rohru, District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh (Annexure R-I) annexed with the reply of respondent No.3, perusal whereof clearly reveals that petitioner has been deemed to have been retired at the age of 60 years but yet he has been given pension w.e.f.01.01.2018 in terms of judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in Sunder Singh’s case (supra). 10. No doubt, before passing of judgment in Baldev Singh’s case(supra) petitioner stood retired and he had not completed 10 years qualifying service for the purpose of pension and as such, he approached this Court by way of CWP No. 2956 of 2019 seeking therein direction to the respondent to extend him benefit of judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court Sunder Singh’s case(supra), wherein it specifically came to be ruled that in case regular service combined with daily wage service (5 years daily wage service as one year regular service) comes to more than eight years, same shall be 7 treated as ten years and in that eventuality, he shall be granted pension w.e.f. 01.01.2018. Since petitioner after his regularization had not completed ten years service, rather had only rendered service of nine years and eight months, respondents extending him benefit of judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in Sunder Singh’s case (supra) though granted pension but w.e.f. 01.01.2018, however, claim of the petitioner is that now on account of judgment passed by Full Bench of this Court Baldev Singh’s case(supra), he shall be deemed to have retired at the age of 60 years, meaning thereby he shall be deemed to have retired on 30.09.2013, if it is so, he shall be deemed to have completed more than ten years regular service prior to his superannuation. The moment petitioner or other similarly situate persons complete ten years service after his regularization, he becomes eligible for pension under CCS Pension Rules. 11. Though, having taken note of aforesaid fact, respondent- Accountant General, Himachal Pradesh while issuing pension payment order (Annexure A-1) annexed with CMP No. 14882 of 2025 advised respondent-Department to review the pension case of the petitioner, but since no steps were taken by the respondent-Sate, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings. 12. Though, Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General attempted to argue that no illegality can be said to have been 8 committed by the respondents while granting pension to the petitioner w.e.f.01.01.2018, especially when petitioner stood retired prior to passing of judgment in Baldev Singh’s case(supra), but such argument deserves outright rejection for the reason that bare perusal of judgment passed in Baldev Singh’s case(supra) clearly suggests that all the Class-IV employees engaged prior to 10.05.2001 shall be deemed to have been superannuated at the age of 60 years and thereafter, though their pay fixation was to be done on notional basis but they shall be entitled to pension, gratuity and leave encashment. Needless to say, judgment passed in Baldev Singh’s case has attained finality and same has also been implemented in number of cases including in the case of the petitioner. 13. Consequently, in view of the above, this Court finds merit in the present petition and accordingly same is allowed. The respondents are directed to treat the petitioner to have retired at the age of 60 years i.e. 30.09.2013 and thereafter, he be released pension, gratuity and leave encashment considering his retirement age to be 60 years. Since petitioner has been fighting for his rightful claims for years together, this Court hopes and trusts that needful shall be done expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months, failing which, petitioner shall be entitled to interest at the rate 9 of 6% from the date such amount fell due till its realization. Pending applications, if any, also stands disposed of. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge July 03, 2025 (shankar)