IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No. 1370 of 2024 Decided on: 21st July, 2025 _________________________________________________________________ Kishori Lal ....Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. …Respondents _________________________________________________________________ Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua 1 Whether approved for reporting? _________________________________________________________________ For the petitioner: Mr. Devender Sharma, Mr. C.N. Singh and Mr. Anshul Gandhi, Advocates. For the respondents: Ms. Menka Raj Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents No. 1 to 4. Ms. Komal Chaudhary, Advocate, for respondent No.5. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Heard. 2. Petitioner superannuated as Class-III employee from the respondent-H.P. Public Works Department on 31.05.2016 at the age of 58 years. He had rendered nine years and five months of regular service at the time of his retirement. Petitioner’s regular service being short from the 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes - 2 - requisite qualifying service of ten years under the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, the respondents did not sanction/release the pension in his favour. Petitioner’s contention is that prior to regularization of his services, he had also rendered twelve years of daily wage service. This daily wage service is required to be given due credit in light 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 to enable petitioner to earn pension. 3. In Sunder Singh Versus The State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors.2 the Hon’ble Apex Court held that w.e.f. 01.01.2018, the appellants (therein) or other similarly placed Class-IV 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 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 - 3 - 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 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 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 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.” - 4 - Furthermore, in Roop Lal Versus State of H.P. & Others5 the benefit of decision in Balo Devi2 and Sunder Singh4, was extended to the daily wage service rendered by Class-III 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, Class-III/ 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 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, 5 LPA No.196 of 2022, decided on 11.10.2023 - 5 - 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.” 4. Taking note of above, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for sanction/release of pension in his favour by counting daily wage service alongwith regular service rendered by him towards pension in light of aforesaid decisions and pass appropriate order, in accordance with law, within a period of six weeks. The order so passed be communicated to the petitioner. In case, the petitioner is held entitled to pension, the same be released in his favour within the aforesaid period, failing which, the respondents shall be liable to pay the amount due to the petitioner with 5% interest per annum from the due date. - 6 - Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also to stand dispose of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge July 21, 2025 Rohitl