1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.14166 of 2025 Date of decision: 02.09.2025 Keshav Ram. ...Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. & Ors. ...Respondents. Coram: Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioner : Mr. Jai Dev, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. L.N. Sharma, Additional Advocate General. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Mr. L.N. Sharma, Additional Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents. In view of the nature of the order passed by respondent No.3, impugned herein, and the order being passed hereinafter, there is no necessity to call for any reply from the respondents. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard at this stage. 2. In light of directions issued in Keshav Ram vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors.1, respondent No.3 considered the representation of the petitioner for grant of 1 CWP No.5351 of 2024 decided on 12.06.2024. -2- pension in light of the law laid down in Sunder Singh Versus The State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors.2. and Balo Devi & Ors. vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors.3, whereby, vide impugned office order dated 24.08.2024, the petitioner’s representation was rejected. 3. The impugned order dated 24.08.2024 gives the facts of the petitioner's engagement and services rendered by him on daily-wage basis as well as on regular basis as under:- “As per record Sh. Keshav was engaged as daily wage worker on 7-7-1998. His services were disengaged in 2000, however re-engaged in 2000, however re-engaged thereafter as per Ld. Labour Court. He worked with 240 days from 1-1-2000. Thereafter, his services were regularized as per 8 years policy in 2010. He thus rendered total regular services of 8 years and 4 months, before he was allowed to retire on premature retirement.” 4. The impugned order acknowledges the fact that the petitioner has rendered total of 8 years and 4 months of regular service before his premature retirement. The order, however, declines to grant weightage to petitioner’s daily- wage service on the ground that such service rendered by the petitioner was not similar to the services rendered by the appellants in Sunder Singh2 and Balo Devi2 cases; That in 2Civil Appeal No. 6309 of 2017 decided on 08.03.2018. 3Civil Appeal No. 4792 of 2022 decided on 18.07.2022. -3- Sunder Singh2 and Balo Devi2 cases, the employees/workmen were granted benefit in terms of decision rendered in Mool Raj Upadhyaya Versus State of H.P. & Ors.4. The above reasoning is absolutely misplaced. The relevant portion from the decision rendered in Sunder Singh2 reads 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 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 has further been clarified in Balo Devi2 as under:- “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.” 5. The benefit of the above decisions has not been restricted to those employees whose services were regularized in terms of Mool Raj Upadhyaya4 decision. The benefit is 4 1994 Supp (2) SCC 316 -4- applicable to all Class-IV as well as Class-III employees (Ref. Roop Lal vs. State of H.P. & Ors.5) for counting the daily wage service rendered by them for the purpose of qualifying services for grant of pension. Hence, the impugned order dated 24.08.2024 is quashed and set aside with direction to respondent No.3 to consider and decide the case of the petitioner afresh strictly in consonance with decisions rendered in Sunder Singh2 and Balo Devi2 within a period of four weeks from today. The decision so arrived at shall also be 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 2nd September, 2025 Judge (Pardeep) 5 LPANo.196 of 2022 decided on 11.10.2023.