IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.7781 of 2025 Date of Decision: 14.10.2025 _______________________________________________________ Inder Singh …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & others … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Ms. Babita Chauhan, Advocate vice Mr. A.K. Gupta, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocate Generals and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for respondent Nos. 1 to 4. Mr. Tek Ram Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.5. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Ms. Babita Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioner, is that petitioner herein is entitled to the benefit of Judgment rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.4792 of 2022, titled Balo Devi versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others and in Civil Appeal No.6309 of 2017, titled Sunder Singh vs. The State of Himachal Pradesh 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 and others (Annexure P-3), wherein it has been held that five years of service rendered on daily wage basis shall be treated equal to one year of regular service and in case, after grant of afore benefit, daily wage service of the petitioner comes out to be eight years, the same shall be reckoned as ten years. 2. Petitioner herein was engaged as a Daily Wage Beldar in the Department of Agriculture in the year, 1996 and his services were regularized in May, 2007. After having rendered more than sixteen years of services (11 years on daily wage basis and five years on regular basis), the petitioner, at first instance, superannuated on attaining the age of 58 years. However, subsequently petitioner herein came to be granted the benefit of the judgment rendered by Full Judge Bench of this Court in CWP No. No.2711 of 2017, titled Baldev vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, wherein it came to be ruled that such of the daily wage employees, who were employed prior to 01.05.2001, shall retire at the age of 60 years. In terms of aforesaid judgment, he was deemed to have retired on 30.09.2014, as a result thereof, he rendered more than seven years, six months and nine days of regular service prior to his retirement. 3. Though, petitioner, prior to his having rendered seven years ,six months and nine days of regular service, had rendered 11 3 years of service on daily wage basis, but yet he was not given the benefit of judgment rendered Hon'ble Apex Court in Sunder Singh’s case (supra). The petitioner approached competent authority for grant of benefit in terms of judgment passed in Sunder Singh’s case, but since the needful was not done, he has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein for following main reliefs:- “ That the respondents may be ordered to pay pension to the petitioner w.e.f. May, 2023 when the old pension scheme was restored by the Government with all benefits incidental thereof.” 4. Pursuant to the notices issued in the instant proceedings, respondent -State has filed reply, wherein the facts, as have been noticed hereinabove, have not been disputed, but an attempt has been made to defeat the rightful claim of the petitioner on the pretext that since petitioner rendered only seven years, six months and nine days of regular basis, he is not entitled for pension. Besides above, it has been further submitted at the behest of the respondents that petitioner had not opted for the old pension scheme within a period of 60 days from the date of issuance of office memorandum. There is no specific denial with regard to applicability of the judgment rendered in Sunder Singh’s case to the case of the petitioner. 5. Once it is not in dispute that, in terms of judgment rendered in Sunder Singh’s case(supra), daily wage service rendered prior to regularization is also required to be taken into consideration 4 for the purpose of computing qualifying service for the grant of pension, prayer made on behalf of the petitioner through instant petition deserves to be allowed. 6. Since petitioner rendered more than 11 years service on daily wage basis prior to his regularization, he is required to be granted the benefit of two years’ regular service in addition to seven years, six months and nine days rendered of regular service rendered by him prior to his superannuation upon attaining the age of 60 years. If the aforesaid benefit, in terms of the judgment in Sunder Singh’s case, is extended to the petitioner, petitioner shall be deemed to have rendered nine years, six months and nine days of regular service. As has been observed hereinabove, in terms of Sunder Singh’s judgment, where a daily wage employee, after extension of the benefit of daily wage service, completes eight years service, he shall be deemed to have rendered 10 years of regular basis. 7. For the detailed discussion made hereinabove, claim of the petitioner as put forth in the instant petition deserves to be allowed. 8. Consequently, in view of the above, the present petition is allowed and respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for pension, treating him to have rendered more than 10 years of regular service. Needful in terms of instant order shall be 5 done expeditiously, preferably within a period of two weeks, subject to the petitioner exercising the option for the old pension scheme. The petitioner shall also be entitled to all consequential benefits, Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. 9. p (Sandeep Sharma), Judge October 14,2025 (shankar)