IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.5109 of 2024 Date of Decision: 9.10.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Raji Nand ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. C.N. Singh and Mr. Devender K. Sharma, Advocates. For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, Mr. Rajan Kahol and Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for the State. Mr. Tara Chand Chauhan, Advocate, for respondent No.5. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) This is a classic case, where Pension Payment Order was issued by Accountant General (A&E) on 18/30.1.2024, thereby authorizing pension in favour of the petitioner @ Rs.11600/- with all allowances w.e.f. 1.11.2013, but till date, no pension has been paid to the petitioner in terms of aforesaid PPO, as a result thereof, he is compelled to approach this court in the instant proceedings praying therein for following main reliefs: “i) Issue a writ of Mandamus Or other appropriate writ, order or direction by directing the respondents department to release the retiral benefits in favour of the petitioner w.e.f. 01.11.2013 in terms of the order dated 18.01.2024 as well as order dated - 2 - 30.01.2024 (Annexure P-3) within time bound manner along with 12% interest for delayed payment. ii) That the record of the case may be called for. iii) Cost of the writ petition may be awarded in favour of the Petitioner in terms of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in SLP (Civil) Diary No. 30326/23 titled The Special Land Acquisition Collector versus Vithal Rao as well as in SLP (Civil) No. 3398/2024 titled State of Rajasthan and Ors. Versus Gopal Bijawat, for dragging the petitioner into the unnecessary litigation contrary to the litigation policy framed by the respondents-department.” 2. Admitted facts of the case adduced on record by the respective parties are that in the year 1995, petitioner was appointed as Beldar with the respondent department. After his having rendered more than 12 years’ service on daily wage basis with 240 days in each calendar year, services of the petitioner were regularized in the year 2007, but subsequently, in terms of law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in Rakesh Kumar’s case, he was granted work charge status/regularization w.e.f. 1.1.2003. After having rendered more than 16 years service, petitioner retired on his attaining the age of superannuation i.e. 58 years on 30.10.2011. 3. Since petitioner herein was not granted benefit of service rendered by him on daily wage basis prior to his being granted work charge status, he approached this Court by way of CWP No. 2970 of 2019, titled as Raji Nand v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors., which ultimately came to be disposed of vide judgment dated 13.7.2021, whereby direction came to be issued to the respondent- State to grant benefit to the petitioner in terms of judgment rendered - 3 - by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 6309 of 2017, titled as Sunder Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors., decided on 8.3.2018, wherein it came to be ruled that five years daily wage service shall be treated as one year regular service and in case after adding aforesaid one year total regular service of employee concerned comes out to be more than eight, but less than ten years, same shall be considered as 10 years. In terms of the aforesaid judgment passed by this Court, ultimately petitioner came to be granted benefit of Sunder Singh (supra) and he was granted pension w.e.f. 1.1.2018. 4. Now precise dispute as has been sought to be raised in the instant petition is with regard to petitioner’s entitlement to the pension w.e.f. 1.11.2013, on account of pension payment order dated 18/30.1.2024 (Annexure P-3) issued by the office of Accountant General. Since in the year 2023, Full Bench of this Court in CWP No. 2711 of 2017, Baldev v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors., held that Class-IV employees, who were engaged prior to 10.5.2001 and were subsequently regularized, are required to be superannuated at the age of sixty years, petitioner issued legal notice dated 22.6.2023, to the respondents calling upon them to treat his retirement date as i.e. 30.10.2013, instead of 30.10.2011. Respondents pursuant to aforesaid legal notice, passed order dated 11.12.2023 (Annexure R-1) annexed with the reply filed by respondents No.1 to 3, whereby they considered petitioner to have retired on 31.10.2013, but while doing - 4 - so, they failed to revise the pension as well as other retrial benefits of the petitioner from due date. 5. Though in the case at hand, office of Accountant General after having received pension paper from the concerned office authorized pension in favour of the petitioner vide Pension Payment Order dated 18/30.1.2024, w.e.f. 1.11.2013, but fact remains that till date, petitioner has been not paid pension as well as other retiral benefits w.e.f. 1.11.2013 till 31.12.2017 and as such, he is compelled to approach this court in the instant proceedings praying therein for reliefs as have been reproduced herein above. 6. True it is that prior to passing of order dated 11.12.2023 (Annexure R1), petitioner was deemed to have been retired on 30.10.2011, but once it is not in dispute that subsequently on account of judgment passed by the Full Bench of this Court in Baldev Singh (supra), petitioner was deemed to have retired on 31.10.2013 after having attained the age of 60 years, he was necessarily required to be given benefit of two years which came to be enhanced on account of extension of retirement age. In case petitioner is considered to have retired on 31.10.2013, he would be deemed to have completed 10 years regular service on afore date on account of his having rendered work charge service w.e.f. 1.1.2003 till 2007, whereafter petitioner will be deemed to have worked regularly w.e.f. 2007 to 2013. On account of aforesaid development, petitioner was now otherwise not required to be given any benefit of Sunder Singh (supra) rather he of his own on - 5 - account of his having rendered more than 10 years regular service as detailed herein above, ought to have been granted pension w.e.f. 1.11.2013 instead of 1.1.2018 in terms of CCS Pension Rules, wherein 10 years qualifying service has been provided for granting pension. 7. Admittedly, in the case at hand, prior to passing of judgment in Baldev Singh (supra), petitioner was granted benefit of judgment passed in Sunder Singh (supra), as a result thereof, he was only granted pension w.e.f. 1.11.2018, but now since there is no dispute that petitioner is deemed to have retired on 31.10.2013, in terms of judgment passed by Full Bench in Baldev Singh’s case, he shall be deemed to be in continuous regular service w.e.f. 1.1.2003 to 31.10.2013 i.e. 10 years and 10 months, meaning thereby, petitioner shall be entitled to pension as well as other retiral benefits w.e.f. 1.11.2013, which otherwise has been authorized in his favour by office of the Accountant General vide Pension Payment Order 18.1.2024 (Annexure P-3). 8. Consequently, in view of the above, this Court finds merit in the present petition and as such, same is allowed and respondents are directed to grant pension/arrears of pension as well as other retiral benefits etc. to the petitioner w.e.f. 1.11.2013 to till date, expeditiously, preferably, within two months. Needless to say, while doing needful in terms of the instant order, respondents shall be at liberty to make adjustments qua the amount petitioner has already received in terms of Sunder Singh (supra) Since in the case at hand, - 6 - petitioner despite there being issuance of Pension Payment Order by the competent authority i.e. office of Accountant General in the year 2024 has been not paid pension/arrears of pension and other retiral benefits till date, this is a fit case where exemplary cost deserves to be imposed upon the State, but this court refrains itself from passing such order, but a direction is issued to the respondents to pay all retiral benefits in favour of the petitioner, as directed supra, within four weeks, failing which not only the petitioner shall be entitled to 9% interest on delayed payment, but cost will be imposed upon State, for which liberty is reserved to petitioner to move this Court after four weeks, in case the instant order is not complied with. 9. In the aforesaid terms, present petition is disposed of alongwith pending applications, if any. October 9, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (manjit) Judge