IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.10434 of 2024 Date of decision: 03.01.2025 Meena Devi. ...Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. & Ors. ...Respondents. Coram: Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioner : Mr. Bonit Prakash, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Sikander Bhushan, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents No.1 to 4-State. : Mr. Tek Ram Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.5. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Petitioner seeks pension from the respondents for the services rendered by her. 2. Following facts are not disputed:- 2(i). Petitioner was initially engaged as Part-time Labourer in August, 1994, in respondent-Agriculture Department. 2(ii). Petitioner was conferred daily-waged status w.e.f. 08.01.2009. Her services were regularized on 22.04.2016. Petitioner superannuated on 28.02.2024. 1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes -2- 2(iii). The petitioner has not been paid pension by the respondents on the ground that she does not have the requisite qualifying service to her credit. Petitioner disputes this and therefore, instituted the present writ petition. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the case file. 4. Total period of service rendered by the petitioner is tabulated as under:- Service Period Total Daily wage 08.01.2009 to 22.04.2016 7 years 3 months 14 days Regular 22.04.2016 to 28.02.2024 7 years 4 months 10 days The respondents have submitted that petitioner was covered under the New Pension Scheme but has opted for Old Pension Scheme (‘OPS’). The OPS is governed by the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1965. As per these Rules, a Government servant is required to render at least 10 years of regular service for release of pensionary benefits. The petitioner has not completed 10 years of regular service, therefore, the respondents have not released pension to her, -3- though leave encashment amounting to Rs.2,22,635/- has been released in her favour. The DCRG is also yet to be released, the same can be released after realization of the NPS account of the petitioner. 5. Petitioner has claimed pension on the strength of decisions rendered in Sunder Singh vs. The State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors.1 and Balo Devi vs. State of H.P. & Ors.2. In terms of these decisions, petitioner is entitled to one year of regular service, in lieu of 5 years of daily wage service rendered by her. The petitioner in all has rendered 7 years 3 months and 14 days of daily-waged service. The petitioner is certainly entitled to one year of regular service, in view of the daily-waged service rendered by her. Addition of this one year would take her regular service to 8 years 4 months and 14 days. She, therefore, would become entitled for grant of pension in light of aforesaid decisions, relevant portion of which reads as under:- Sunder Singh’s case1:- “6. Accordingly, we direct that w.e.f 01.01.2018, the appellants or other similarly placed Class-IV employees will be entitled to pension if they 1Civil Appeal No.6309 of 2017 decided on 08.03.2018 2Civil Appeal No.4792 of 2022 decided on 18.07.2022. -4- have been duly regularized and have been completed total eligible service for more than 10 years. Daily wage service of 5 years will be treated equal to one year of regular service for pension. If on that basis, their services are more than 8 years but less than 10 years, their service will be reckoned as ten years. Balo Devi’s case2:- We find it difficult to accept the submission of Mr. Patwalia. If the submission is accepted, the last line of paragraph 6 would lose any significance or meaning. The intent of this Court was quite clear that : - (a) The services rendered as a regular employee may first be computed. (b) To the service as rendered to above, the component at the rate of one year of regular service for every five years of service as a daily wager, be added. (c) If both the components as detailed in Paras a & b hereinabove, take the length of service to a level of more than eight years but less than ten years, in terms of last sentence of paragraph 6 of the Order, the services shall be reckoned as ten years.” The stand taken by respondent No.2 in the reply about its being not bound to consider petitioner’s case under the aforesaid decisions for want of instructions in this regard from the competent authority, shows very poor understanding of judicial process and its implications. The stand is deprecated. For the foregoing reasons, this writ petition is allowed. Respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for grant of pension, in light of above observations within a period of two weeks. The order so passed be also -5- communicated to the petitioner. All consequential actions shall follow. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, to also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua 3rd January, 2025 Judge (Pardeep)