IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.9746 of 2023 Decided on: 7th May, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hirda Ram …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Bonit Thakur, Advocate vice Mr. A.K. Gupta, Advocate. For the Respondents: Ms. Menka Raj Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Petitioner retired as Class-III employee on 31.01.2006. He has been denied pension for not satisfying the condition of minimum required length of service. Petitioner seeks counting of his daily wage service towards qualifying service for the purpose of pension and pensionary benefits. The claim has been made on the strength of decision rendered in Roop Lal Versus State of H.P. & Others2. Relevant portion from the decision reads as under:- 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 LPA No.196 of 2022, decided on 11.10.2023 2 “21. In view of the aforesaid proposition of law, we are of the considered view that the purpose of pension, the 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.” 2. In the aforesaid judgment, decisions rendered in Sunder Singh Versus The State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors.3 and Balo Devi & others Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others4 have been held applicable to Class-III employees as well. 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 3. Respondents in their reply filed on 22.12.2023 have denied benefit of aforesaid decisions to the petitioner on account of pendency of SLP(C) No.1007/2024. 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. 4. In view of above, this writ petition is disposed of by directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for grant of pension in light of decision rendered in Roop Lal’s2 case within a period of six weeks from today. The order so passed be also 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 May 07, 2025 Judge Mukesh