IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No.9350 of 2023 Decided on: 03.09.2025 _________________________________________________________________ Smt. Vijo ....Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. …Respondents _________________________________________________________________ Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua 1 Whether approved for reporting? _________________________________________________________________ For the petitioner: Mr. Prashant Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Ms. Menka Raj Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Petitioner is wife of late Sh. Narain Dass. She claims family pension and pensionary benefits on account of service rendered by her late husband. The above claim has been made on the strength of decision rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sunder Singh Versus The State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors.2 . 2. Petitioner’s case is that her husband was engaged 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes 2 Civil Appeal No.6309 of 2017, decided on 08.03.2018 - 2 - on daily wage basis in the year 1983 as Pipe Lineman. He was conferred work charge status on 01.01.1994. He superannuated on 31.03.2003, after rendering 09 years and 03 months’ of regular service as Class-III employee. 3. Respondents have declined to grant relief to the petitioner on the ground of her husband having served only for 09 years and 03 months on regular basis i.e. less than the required qualifying service of ten years. Respondents have further asserted that decision rendered in Sunder Singh2 is not applicable to the facts of the case as petitioner’s husband was employed against Class-III post, whereas, Sunder Singh’s2 decision had applicability to Class-IV employees. 4. The above contention of respondents is misplaced as in Roop Lal Versus State of H.P. & Others3, the decisions rendered in Sunder Singh2 and Balo Devi & others Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others4 giving benefit of daily wage service to Class-IV employees have been held applicable to Class-III employees as well. 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 3 LPA No.196 of 2022, decided on 11.10.2023 4 Civil Appeal No.4792 of 2022, decided on 18.07.2022 - 3 - 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 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.” It is a matter of record that SLP(C)No.1007 of 2024, instituted by the State against the aforesaid decision, has been dismissed by the Hon’ble Apex Court on 18.03.2025. 5. In view of above, this writ petition is disposed of by directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for grant of family pension and pensionary benefits - 4 - in light of decisions rendered in Sunder Singh2 , Roop Lal3 and Balo Devi4 within a period of six weeks from today. The order so passed be also communicated to the petitioner. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also to stand dispose of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge September 3, 2025 R.Atal