( 2025:HHC:25042 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 8452/2023 Decided on: 30.07.2025 Jalmu Devi …Petitioner Versus H.P. State Electricity Board Ltd. & Ors. .…Respondents. ………………………………………………………………………………. Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner: Mr. R.K. Dogra, Advocate. For the respondents: Ms. Vandana Misra, Advocate. Jyotsna Rewal Dua , J Petitioner’s husband Sh. Durga Dass passed away on 12.02.2001. He was not paid pension, his service being less than qualifying service. In this writ petition filed almost 22 years later, petitioner seeks family pension. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and considered case filed 3. The case. 3(i) Petitioner’s husband Sh. Durga Dass was initially engaged by the respondents-Board as Beldar (Class-IV) on daily wage basis on 02.04.1982. He continued to serve as such till work charge status was conferred upon him on 29.12.1997 and retired on 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes 2 ( 2025:HHC:25042 30.09.2000. This assertion regarding petitioner’s retirement on 30.09.2000 is amply demonstrated by the following office order passed by the respondents on 11.09.2000: - “Sh. Durga Dass, T./Mate(W/C) presently working in Electrical Sub-Division No-II, Mandi under this division shall stands retired from the service of Board with effect from 30.09.2000 (A.N.) after attaining the age of superannuation on 30.09.2000.” 3(ii) At the time of his superannuation, Sh. Durga Dass had rendered 15 years of daily waged service, which in view of law laid down in Sunder Singh Vs. The State of Himachal Pradesh & ors.2 and Balo Devi Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors.3 has to be construed as equivalent to three years of regular service. Additionally, Sh. Durga Dass had worked for two years and eight months on work charge basis, thus, total regular/work charge service rendered by Sh. Durga Dass was five years and eight months. This being less than qualifying service of ten years required under the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1972, Sh. Durga Dass was not sanctioned pension after his superannuation on 30.09.2000. Sh. Durga Dass left for heavenly abode on 12.02.2001. 2 Civil Appeal No.6309/2017 decided on 08.03.2018 3 Latest HLJ 2022 (HP) (2) 817 3 ( 2025:HHC:25042 4. For the petitioner, it has been urged that late Sh. Durga Dass was born on 17.09.1948. He was 52 years of age on 30.09.2000, therefore, he could not have been retired by the respondents on 30.09.2000. 17.09.1948 being the date of birth of petitioner’s late husband, it has to be construed that petitioner’s late husband died in harness and in that eventuality, petitioner would be entitled to family pension. I am not impressed with ingenuity of the case build up by the petitioner. The respondents have placed on record the order retiring petitioner’s husband late Sh. Durga Dass on his attaining the age of superannuation on 30.09.2000. There are no contemporary documents available on record to suggest that petitioner’s late husband has ever worked with the respondents after 30.09.2000 or that the respondents paid him any salary/emoluments thereafter. Rather the respondents have specifically pleaded that they had released all admissible dues to petitioner’s late husband at the time of his superannuation on 30.09.2000. It appears that the petitioner has built up her entire case for treating her husband to be in service beyond 30.09.2000 merely on the basis of conjectures by presuming his date of birth as 17.09.1948. Respondents dispute this fact. There are no documents on record to support petitioner’s contention that her husband was born on 17.09.1948 and this was the date of birth entered in his service record with the respondents. It is not the case 4 ( 2025:HHC:25042 of petitioner that her husband had taken legal recourse/appropriate remedy during his life time against the respondents in relation to his alleged illegal superannuation on 30.09.2000 or for correction in the recorded date of birth. Additionally, this writ petition has been filed by the petitioner 22 years after the death of her husband, without explaining the reasons for delay and laches. In the given facts and circumstances, when the documents on record speak for themselves that petitioner’s late husband had only rendered five years and eight months of regular/work charge service at the time of his superannuation on 30.09.2000, which is short of required 10 years of qualifying service for the purpose of pension, petitioner’s claim for family pension is not tenable. Accordingly, the present petition fails and is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge 30th July, 2025(rohit)