1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.10816 of 2023 Date of decision: 13.05.2025 Chaman Lal. ...Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. & Ors. ...Respondents. Coram: Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioner : Mr. Y.S. Thakur, Advocate. For the respondents : Ms. Menka Raj Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, matter is heard at this stage 2. Respondents have not counted the daily wage services rendered by the petitioner towards qualifying service for the purpose of granting him pension and pensionary benefits. Feeling aggrieved, petitioner has preferred the instant petition. 3. Following facts are not disputed by the respondents:- 3(i). Petitioner was engaged on daily wage basis in the respondent-Forest Department on 01.07.1998. With effect -2- from the year 1999, he rendered continuous service of more than 240 days in each calendar year till 26.10.2009. 3(ii). Petitioner’s services were regularized on the post of Peon (Class-IV) w.e.f. 27.10.2009. 3(iii). After rendering 8 years 2 months and 5 days of service, petitioner retired on attaining the age of 58 years on 31.12.2017. 3(iv). Considering his regular service as 8 years 2 months and 5 days, i.e. less than the requisite qualifying service of 10 years, the respondents did not release pension and pensionary benefits to the petitioner. 4. Petitioner having rendered continuous daily wage service w.e.f. 1999 till 26.10.2009, contends that he is entitled for the benefit of the decisions rendered in Sunder Singh Versus The State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors.1 and Balo Devi & Ors. vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors.2. In Sunder Singh1, it was held as under:- “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 have 1Civil Appeal No. 6309 of 2017 decided on 08.03.2018. 2Civil Appeal No. 4792 of 2022 decided on 18.07.2022. -3- 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.” The above decision was further clarified by Hon’ble Apex Court in Balo Devi2 as under:- “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.” In view of above, daily waged service rendered by the petitioner is liable to be counted towards qualifying service for the purpose of pension, as per the mechanism provided under the aforesaid decisions. Furthermore, the petitioner having been engaged as daily wager prior to 10.05.2001 would also be entitled to the benefit of decision rendered in Baldev Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & -4- Ors.3. Relevant paras from the decision in Baldev’s case are as under:- “(ii). Inconsistency between Bar Chand and Chuni Lal now stands, not just resolved, but rather dissolved, in view of notification dated 21.02.2018 amending F.R. 56(e), issued by the State, which has now reinforced and reiterated what was held in Bar Chand’s case, i.e. date of regularization of a class IV daily wager whether prior or after 10.05.2001, will make no difference to the age of his continuing in service. It is the date of engagement, which is the decisive factor. If date of engagement/appointment is prior to 10.05.2001, the Class¬IV employee will continue to serve till 60 years of age. In case, it is later than 10.05.2001, then restriction in age upto 58 years will apply. (iii). There cannot be any discrimination amongst similarly situated Class¬IV employees belonging to one homogenous class. Therefore the retirement date, of such of those employees, who had been engaged on daily wage basis prior to 10.05.2001, but regularized after 10.05.2001 and have actually been retired prior to the issuance of notification dated 21.02.2018 at the age of 58 years, shall be deemed to be the date when they otherwise attained the age of 60 years. Since these employees have not actually worked beyond the age of 58 years, therefore, they will not be entitled to the actual monetary benefits of wages/salary etc. for the period of service from the date of their actual retirement till deemed dates of their retirement. However, they will be entitled to notional fixation of their pay for the period in question for working out their payable pension and payment of consequential arrears of pension accordingly.” The petitioner, therefore, has to be deemed to have retired at the age of 60 years and not at 58 years. In case the benefit of aforesaid decisions is extended to the petitioner, he would satisfy the qualifying serving required 3HLJ 2022 (HP)(1)151 -5- for the purpose of pension. Since, the respondents did not consider the petitioner to be eligible for grant of pension under the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972/Old Pension Scheme, therefore, he was not in a position to exercise option as envisaged under office memorandum dated 04.05.2023. 5. In view of above, this writ petition is disposed of by directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner in light of decisions rendered in Sunder Singh1, Balo Devi2 and Baldev3, keeping in view the observations made hereinabove within a period of three weeks from today. Consequential action including grant of option under office memorandum dated 04.05.2023 be also taken within the aforesaid period. The benefits ensuing to the petitioner be released within three weeks thereafter. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua 13th May, 2025 Judge (Pardeep)