IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.5690 of 2020 Decided on: 13th May, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mansha Devi …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Jagan Nath, Advocate. For the Respondents: Ms. Menka Raj Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents No.1 to 4. Mr. Rajesh Kosh, Advocate, for respondent No.5. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard at this stage. 2. Petitioner’s husband-Sh. Kanshi Ram had rendered daily wage service in Class-IV cadre in the respondent-Public Works Department w.e.f. 1975 to 31.12.1982 under different categories, i.e. Beldar, Motor Mate etc. According to the respondents, he was in continuous employment with them as daily wage Work 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 Inspector w.e.f. 1983. His services were regularized w.e.f. 01.01.1994 under Class-III cadre. Sh. Kanshi Ram retired from government service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.03.2000 after rendering 06 years and 03 months of regular service. Prior to regularization, he had put in 11 years of continuous daily wage service w.e.f. 1983 to 31.12.1993. Sh. Kanshi Ram died on 25.08.2009. He was denied benefit of pension and pensionary benefits on account of his not possessing requisite qualifying service. Petitioner is his legally wedded wife and is seeking benefits of the decisions rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sunder Singh Versus The State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors.2 and Balo Devi & others Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others3. 3. The respondents have denied extending the benefit of aforesaid decisions to the petitioner/her late husband on the ground that the aforesaid decisions were rendered in case of Class-IV employees and are not applicable to Class-III employees. Sh. Kanshi Ram had retired from government service from Class-III cadre, therefore, he was not entitled to the benefits of decisions 2 Civil Appeal No.6309 of 2017, decided on 08.03.2018 3 Civil Appeal No.4792 of 2022, decided on 18.07.2022 3 rendered in Sunder Singh2 and Balo Devi3. His daily wage service cannot be counted and added to the regular service rendered by him. 4. In Roop Lal Versus State of H.P. & Others4, benefits flowing from the decisions in Sunder Singh2 and Balo Devi3 were held to be applicable and extendable towards regular service for the purpose of pension even to Class-III employees. Relevant portion from the decision reads as under:- “21. In view of the aforesaid proposition of law, we are of the considered view that the purpose of pension, the Constitutional mandate contained in Articles 14, 38, 39 of the Constitution of India and the doctrine of proportionate equality would be required to be read into the Rules as has been held by the Apex Court in Sunder Singh's case supra in order to give weightage of service rendered as daily wager towards regular service for the purpose of pension even to Class-III employees. 22. In view of the above discussion, respondent- State is directed to extend benefit of Daily Wage service to the petitioner, in terms of Sunder Singh's case, as explained in Balo Devi's case, for calculating qualifying service for the purpose of pension, and to extend all benefits of pension to the petitioner within one month from today. However, the petitioner shall be entitled for monetary benefits three years prior to the date of filing of the petition. Benefits accruing beyond three years prior to filling of the petition, if any, shall be only on notional basis. 22-A. With respect to the cut-off date from which actual monetary benefits are to be extended, keeping in view the law laid down by Supreme Court in Sunder Singh’s and Balo Devi’s cases, it is further clarified that the petitioner shall be entitled for actual monetary benefits w.e.f. 1.1.2018 and the monetary benefits, if any, prior 4 LPA No.196 of 2022, decided on 11.10.2023 4 to 1.1.2018 shall only be on notional basis, but if the three years period, prior to filing of the petition, is subsequent to 1.1.2018, then the actual benefits shall be granted from such subsequent date.” SLP(C) No.1007/2024 instituted by the respondent-State against the aforesaid decision was dismissed by the Hon’ble Apex Court on 18.03.2025. 5. In view of above, the stand taken by the respondents for rejecting petitioner’s case becomes wholly untenable. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner afresh for grant of pension and pensionary benefits to her in light of decision rendered in Roop Lal’s4 case within a period of six weeks from today. The order so passed be also communicated to the petitioner. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua May 13, 2025 Judge Mukesh