IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.1070 of 2025 Date of decision: 01.03.2025 Daulat Ram. ...Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. & Ors. ...Respondents. Coram: Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioner : Mr. Bonit Prakash, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Sikander Bhushan, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents No.1 to 3-State. : Mr. Tek Ram Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.4. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Petitioner is aggrieved against the office order dated 03.10.2024, whereby respondents rejected his case for grant of pension on the ground that petitioner did have not qualifying service of 10 years, which is required under CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the case file. 3. In terms of the impugned office order dated 03.10.2024, the petitioner served as a daily wage worker for 1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes -2- a period of 4 years and 3 months, i.e., from February 2009 to May 2013, and on regular basis for a period of 9 years, 2 months, and 24 days, i.e., from June 2013 upto his superannuation on 31.07.2022. Petitioner’s projected grievance is that respondents have wrongly not granted him benefit of decision rendered in Sunder Singh vs. State of H.P. & Ors.1 by not counting the daily waged service rendered by him. Relevant portion of the decision rendered in Sunder Singh’s case 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.” 4. Respondents have rightly not extended the benefit of Sunder Singh1 case, as the petitioner does not have to his credit requisite minimum 5 years of daily wage service which can be accounted for the purpose. These facts have not been disputed by the petitioner in the writ petition. No other point was urged during hearing. In the given position, when the petitioner has not rendered the requisite 10 years of 1Civil Appeal No.6309 of 2017 decided on 08.03.2018. -3- qualifying service required for grant of pension, the respondents have, therefore, justly rejected his case. Hence, the impugned office order dated 03.10.2024 (Annexure P-2) does not require any interference. There is not merit in the writ petition. The same is accordingly dismissed along with pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua 1st March, 2025 Judge (Pardeep)