IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No.5110 of 2024 Decided on: 7th May, 2025 _________________________________________________________________ Karam Singh ....Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. …Respondents _________________________________________________________________ Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua 1 Whether approved for reporting? _________________________________________________________________ For the petitioner: Mr. Tanuj Thakur, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Sikandar Bhushan, Deputy Advocate General. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge The case set up by the petitioner is that:- (i). He was appointed as Work Inspector (Class-III employee) on daily wage basis with the respondent- Department in October, 1988. (ii). His services were regularized as Work Inspector in the year 1999 on completion of 12 years of continuous service. (iii). Petitioner superannuated from service as Work 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes - 2 - Inspector (Class-III employee) on 31.07.2007. He has not been granted pension and pensionary benefits as he has not to his credit requisite qualifying service in terms of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance upon Roop Lal Versus State of H.P. & Others2, whereby benefit of law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sunder Singh Versus The State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors.3 and Balo Devi & others Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others4 was ordered to be extended to Class-III employees as well. Relevant portion from the aforesaid decision reads as under:- “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 2 LPA No.196 of 2022, decided on 11.10.2023 3 Civil Appeal No.6309 of 2017, decided on 08.03.2018 4 Civil Appeal No.4792 of 2022, decided on 18.07.2022 - 3 - benefits, if any, prior 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.” Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that SLP(C) No.1007/2024 preferred by the State against the aforesaid decision has been dismissed by the Hon’ble Apex Court on 18.03.2025. 3. In view of the aforesaid decision in Roop Lal’s2 case and dismissal of respondents’ appeal against this decision, the present writ petition is disposed of by directing the respondents to consider and decide the case of the petitioner for grant of pension and pensionary benefits to him in accordance with law as well as in light of the aforesaid decision, within a period of six weeks from today. The decision so arrived at shall also be 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 Judge May 7, 2025 R.Atal