IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No.460 of 2024 Decided on: 4th April, 2025 _________________________________________________________________ Reeta Devi ....Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. …Respondents _________________________________________________________________ Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua 1 Whether approved for reporting? _________________________________________________________________ For the petitioner: Mr. Bonit Prakash, Advocate. For the respondents: Ms. Menka Raj Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Petitioner instituted Reeta Devi vs. State of H.P. & Ors.2 seeking family pension from due date with all incidental benefits. The writ petition was disposed of on 23.03.2023 with directions to respondents to consider the case of the petitioner in light of law laid down in Baldev Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors.3, Sunder Singh Versus The 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes 2CWP No.109 of 2021 decided on 23.03.2023. 3HLJ 2022 (HP)(1)151 - 2 - State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors.4 and Balo Devi & Ors. vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors.5. Respondents pursuant to the above directions considered the case of the petitioner and vide office order dated 16.08.2023 declined to grant benefit of decisions in Baldev1, Sunder Singh2 and Balo Devi3 to the petitioner on the ground that petitioner’s late husband superannuated as Mason Gr.II, i.e. Class-III post, whereas the above decisions were rendered in case of Class-IV post. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon Roop Lal Versus State of H.P. & Others6, whereby benefit of law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sunder Singh4 and Balo Devi5 was ordered to be extended to Class- III employees as well. Relevant portion from the aforesaid decision reads as under:- “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 4Civil Appeal No. 6309 of 2017 decided on 08.03.2018. 5Civil Appeal No. 4792 of 2022 decided on 18.07.2022. 6LPA No.196 of 2022, decided on 11.10.2023 - 3 - 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.” Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that SLP(C) No.1007/2024 preferred by the State against the aforesaid decision has been dismissed by the Hon’ble Apex Court on 18.03.2025. The position is admitted by learned Deputy Advocate General. 3. In view of the aforesaid decision in Roop Lal’s5 case, the reasoning assigned by the respondents in the impugned office order dated 16.08.2023 (Annexure P-3), cannot be sustained. Accordingly, impugned office order dated 16.08.2023 (Annexure P-3) is quashed and set-aside. Respondents are directed to consider and decide the case of the petitioner afresh in accordance with law keeping in view the aforesaid decisions, within a period of four weeks from today. The decision so arrived at shall also be communicated to the petitioner. - 4 - The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge April 4, 2025 R.Atal