1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.13280 of 2025 Date of decision: 19.08.2025 Champa Devi. ...Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. ...Respondents. Coram: Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioner : Ms. Ankita, Advocate, vice Mr. Saurabh Ahluwalia, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents. 2. This writ petition has been filed for grant of following substantive reliefs:- “1. That this Hon’ble Court may kindly direct the respondents to count the services of the petitioner rendered as part time and daily wage for the purpose of pensionary and other retirement benefits. 2. That the respondent department may be directed to extend the services of the petitioner till the age of 60 years instead of 58 years as the retirement of the petitioner is due on 30.08.2025 in the light of Judgment dated 28.05.2024 in CWP No.2274 of 2021 along with connected matters titled as Satya Devi versus State of H.P.” -2- 3. Taking into consideration the grievance of the petitioner, the order passed by the respondents on 09.05.2025, and the admitted factual position therein, reply to this petition is not required to be called for, and with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard at this stage. 4. Petitioner preferred a representation on 16.04.2024 (Annexure P-IV) to the respondents for grant of pensionary benefits. The petitioner is stated to be due for retirement on 31.08.2025. Respondents considered the petitioner’s representation and rejected it on 09.05.2025 (Annexure P-V). While rejecting petitioner’s representation, the respondents acknowledged petitioner having rendered 8 years 5 months and 2 days of regular service & 4 years 3 months and 17 days tenure on daily wage basis. The period of daily wage service was not counted by the respondents being less than 5 years as mandated in Sunder Singh vs. The State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors.1. However, while passing the impugned order, it appears that respondents have not appreciated the law laid down in Balo Devi vs. State of H.P. 1Civil Appeal No.6309 of 2017 decided on 08.03.2018 -3- & Ors.2 in proper perspective. Relevant portion of which reads 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, the decision taken by the respondents on 09.05.2025 in rejecting the representation of the petitioner for grant of pension, is quashed and set aside. Respondents are directed to consider and decide the representation dated 16.04.2024 (Annexure P-IV) of the petitioner afresh for grant of pensionary benefits in accordance with law keeping in view the law laid down in Sunder Singh1 and Balo Devi2 within a period of six weeks from today. The decision so arrived at shall also be communicated to the petitioner. 5. Insofar as the petitioner’s claim on the basis of decision rendered in Satya Devi Vs. State of H.P. and 2Civil Appeal No.4792 of 2022 decided on 18.07.2022. -4- Others3 is concerned, learned Additional Advocate General submits that the judgment in case of Satya Devi3 has been assailed by the respondents by filing Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.20496/2024. The common decision passed in several other matters connected with Satya Devi’s3 case has also been assailed by the respondents by filing separate Special Leave Petitions including State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. Vs. Inder Pal4. Copy of an order passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court on 24.03.2025 in several connected Special Leave Petitions with lead case State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. Vs. Inder Pal2 was perused, which reads as under:- “1. Delay condoned. 2. Let the notice be issued to the respondent(s) in all the matters. 3. Tag alongwith SLP© No. 20496/2024. 4. In the meantime the operation of the impugned order(s) is/are stayed.” In view of the fact that operation of impugned order(s) (common judgment rendered on 28.05.2024) in all connected Special Leave Petition has been stayed by the Hon’ble Apex Court, the benefits, if any, flowing to the petitioner under Satya Devi’s3, shall abide by the outcome of 3CWP No. 2274 of 2021 and connected matters. decided on 28.05.2024. 4Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No. 11306/2025. -5- the Inder Pal’s4 case instituted by the respondents against the common judgment rendered in Satya Devi’s3 case. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua 19th August, 2025 Judge (Pardeep)