IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No. 714  of 2024 Decided on: 19th May, 2025 _________________________________________________________________ Veena Devi ....Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. …Respondents _________________________________________________________________ Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua 1 Whether approved for reporting? _________________________________________________________________ For the petitioner: Mr. H. S. Rangra, Advocate. For the respondents: Ms.   Menka   Raj   Chauhan,   Deputy Advocate   General,   for   respondents No. 1 to 3. Mr. Tara Chand Chauhan, Advocate, for respondent No.4. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge With   the   consent   of   learned   counsel   for   the parties, matter is taken up for disposal at this stage. 2. The   case   set   up   by   the   petitioner   is   that:­ Petitioner’s husband was engaged on daily wage basis in the respondent­Department  during the year 1985; He served as 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes such till  31.12.1997. His services were regularized by the respondents as Mason, a Class­III employee, on 01.01.1998. Petitioner’s husband retired from service on 31.07.2007 after rendering 9 years and 7 months of regular service. Service rendered by husband of the petitioner fell short of qualifying service   for   the   purpose   of   pensionary   benefits   under   the Central   Civil   Services   (Pension)   Rules   1972.   Hence,   the respondents did not release pension  to petitioner’s husband and consequently family pension was denied to the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that petitioner’s husband is entitled to the benefits of law laid down   in  Sunder   Singh   Versus   The   State   of   Himachal Pradesh   &   Ors.2  Balo   Devi   &   others   Versus   State   of Himachal   Pradesh   and   others3  and Roop   Lal   Versus State of H.P. & Others4  for counting his daily waged service to enable him to earn pension and consequently enabling the petitioner to also earn family pension. 4. In  Sunder Singh2,  the  Hon’ble Apex Court held that   w.e.f.   01.01.2018,   the   appellants   (therein)   or   other 2 Civil Appeal No.6309 of 2017, decided on 08.03.2018 3 Civil Appeal No.4792 of 2022, decided on 18.07.2022 4 LPA No.196 of 2022, decided on 11.10.2023 2 similarly   placed   Class­IV   employees   will   be   entitled   to pension,   if   they   have   been   duly   regularized   and   have completed eligible service for more than ten years. Daily wage service   of   five   years   will   be   treated   equal   to   one   year   of regular service for pension. If on that basis, their service are more than eight years but less than ten years, then their service will be reckoned as ten years. The relevant para from the decision is as under:­ “6. Accordingly,   we   direct   that   w.e.f   01.01.2018,   the appellants or other similarly placed Class­IV employees will   be   entitled   to   pension   if   they   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.” The above was further clarified  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 3 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.” Furthermore, in Roop Lal4 the benefit of decision in Balo Devi2 and  Sunder Singh4,  was extended to the daily wage   service   rendered   by   Class­III   employees   as   well. Relevant paras from the judgment read as under:­ “19. The claim herein is with respect to counting of service as rendered   on   daily   wage   basis   before   Regularization/ grant of work charge status towards qualifying service for grant   of   pension.   For   the   said   adjudication   what   is relevant is the period rendered towards daily wage by the concerned   employee   irrespective   of   the   status   of   the employee, Class­III/ Class IV. 20. ………………… 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 4 daily wager towards regular service for the purpose of pension even to Class­III 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. 22­A.   With   respect   to   the   cut­off   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.” 5. Taking note of above, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the case of petitioner’s   husband   for   counting   daily   wage   service rendered   by   him   towards   pension   in   light   of   aforesaid decisions and pass appropriate order, in accordance with law, within   a   period   of   four   weeks.     The   order   so   passed   be 5 communicated to the petitioner. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also to stand dispose of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge May 19, 2025 rohit 6