IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.5187 of 2024 Date of Decision: 5.6.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Budh Ram ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Ashwani K. Gupta and Mr. Abhyendra Gupta, Advocates. For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents No.1 and 2. Mr. S.C. Sharma, Senior Advocate with Dr. Ravi Patial, Advocate, for respondent No.3. Mr. Tek Ram Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.4. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) Petitioner herein is aggrieved of order dated 14.7.2023, passed by the Director (Urban Development) Himachal Pradesh, whereby representation having been filed by him in terms of judgment dated 31.5.2023 passed in CWP No. 3334 of 2023, seeking pension w.e.f. 1.1.2018, came to be rejected, petitioner has approached this court in the instant proceedings, praying therein for following reliefs: - 2 - “i. That Annexure P-1 may be set aside/quashed and the respondents may be ordered to pay pension to the petitioner w.e.f. 1.1.2018 with all benefits incidental thereof.” 2. Precisely, the facts of the case as emerge from the record are that petitioner Budh Ram was engaged as daily wage beldar in Municipal Council, Manali, in the year 1987 and his services were thereafter regularized w.e.f. 1.1.1998. Petitioner retired from service on 30.6.2005 after rendering service of more than seven years regular service and nine years daily wage service. 3. Since despite his having completed more than ten years, petitioner was denied pension on the ground that he did not have qualifying service of 10 years in his credit, he approached this court by way of CWP No. 3334 of 2023, which was disposed of on 31.5.2023, with following directions: “It appears that the petitioner has not made any representation to 2nd respondent on that regard. Therefore, the petitioner is directed to make a representation to the 2nd respondent seeking pension w.e.f. 01.01.2018 with benefits thereto by registered post with acknowledgment due and within four weeks of the receipt of representation, the 2nd respondent shall take an appropriate decision therein and communicate the same to the petitioner. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of alongwith pending application(s), if any.” 4. Pursuant to aforesaid direction passed by this Court, petitioner submitted representation dated 3.6.2023, with request to grant him pension w.e.f. 1.1.2018 on the analogy of law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 4792 of 2022, titled as - 3 - “Balo Devi v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors and Civil Appeal No. 6309 of 2017, titled as Sunder Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors., whereby Hon’ble Apex Court held that appellants and other similarly situate class-4 employees will be entitled to pension if they have been duly regularized and have completed total eligible service of more than 10 years. Hon’ble Apex Court held that daily wage of service of five years will be treated equal to one year of regular service for the purpose of pension and in case, total service of the petitioner becomes more than eight years after adding one year of daily wage service in lieu of five years of daily wage service, he shall be deemed to have completed ten years of service, however, vide impugned order dated 14.7.2023, Director (Urban Development) while misinterpreting the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sunder Singh (supra) and Balo Devi, refused to reject the representation filed by the petitioner and as such, he is compelled to approach this Court in the instant proceedings, seeking there reliefs as reproduced herein above. 5. While making this Court peruse afore judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sunder Singh and Balo Devi (supra), Mr. A.K. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner, vehemently argued that once it is not in dispute that petitioner had rendered more than seven years and three months’ service on regular basis and nine years on daily wage basis, he ought to have been given benefit of one year of - 4 - regular service in lieu of nine years service rendered by him on daily wage basis and in that eventuality, his regular service would have become more than eight years and three months. He further submitted as per judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in afore cases, if daily wage employee completes more than eight years service, he shall be deemed to have rendered service of ten years and in that eventuality, he would become eligible for grant of pension from the due date. 6. Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General, after having perused judgment rendered in Sunder Singh and Balo Devi (supra), fairly acknowled the law position as detailed herein above. 7. Similarly, Mr. S.C. Sharma, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent No.3, also admitted that in terms of judgment passed in Balo Devi and Sunder Singh (supra), he ought to have been granted benefit of one year’s regular service in lieu of nine years service rendered by him on daily wage basis. 8. Consequently, in view of the afore fair stand adopted by the learned counsel for the respondents as well as law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sunder Singh and Balo Devi (supra), impugned order dated 14.7.2023, is not sustainable in the eye of law and as such, same is quashed and set-aside and respondents are directed to grant benefit of one year regular service to the petitioner in - 5 - lieu of his having rendered nine years on daily wage basis and thereafter, total service of eight years and three months rendered by him on regular basis shall be deemed to be of ten years’ service, thereby making petitioner entitled for pension from the due date. Since petitioner has been fighting for his rightful claim for quite long, this court hopes and trusts that needful in terms of instant order shall be done by the respondents expeditiously, preferably, within four weeks. 9. In the aforesaid terms, present petition is disposed of alongwith pending applications, if any. June 5, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (manjit) Judge