2025:HHC:33956 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.2877 of 2025 Date of Decision: 07.10.2025 __________________________________________________________ Sh. Rajnesh Kumar …….Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and Others ….Respondents __________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Ms. Babita Chauhan and Mr. Bonit Thakur, Advocates. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Additional Advocate General, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for State. __________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral): By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for following main relief:- “i. That the respondents may be ordered to process the case of the petitioner for pension with immediate effect and the same may be ordered to be paid to the petitioner from the due date, with all the benefits incidental thereof.” 2. Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the pleadings adduced on record by respective parties are that petitioner herein was engaged as Peon on daily wage basis in the Education Department w.e.f. 26.02.2001 and thereafter his services were regularised in December 2009. After putting more than 7 years, 3 months and 7 days of regular service, petitioner retired after attaining the age of 58 years. Since petitioner herein was engaged on daily wage 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2025:HHC:33956 -2- basis prior to 10.05.2001, he was otherwise required to be given benefit of judgment rendered by Full Bench of this Court in CWP No.2711 of 2017, titled as Baldev vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Others, if it is so, petitioner can be said to have rendered more than 9 years, 3 months and 7 days of regular service prior to his superannuation. 3. In nutshell, claim of the petitioner as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Ms. Babita Chauhan, learned counsel representing the petitioner is that since petitioner prior to his regularisation had rendered 8 years, 10 months and 21 days of service on daily wage basis, he is also required to be given benefit of judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.6309 of 2017, titled as Sunder Singh Vs. State of H.P. and Others, wherein Hon’ble Apex Court has held that daily wage service of 5 years will be treated equal to one year of regular service for the purpose of pension and if on that basis, services of daily wage employee becomes more than 8 years but less than 10 years, his/her services will be reckoned as ten years. 4. Though petitioner retired from service after his having rendered 7 years, 3 months and 7 days of regular service at the age of 58 years, but as has been observed hereinabove, petitioner is also entitled to benefit of judgment passed by Full Bench of this Court in Baldev Singh (supra) and as such, he shall deemed to have retired on 31.03.2019, instead of 31.03.2017, after rendering regular service of 9 years, 3 months and 7 days. Since minimum qualifying service for 2025:HHC:33956 -3- pension is 10 years, petitioner herein has claimed through instant petition that he be given benefit of judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.4792 of 2022, arising out of SLP(Civil) No.18830 of 2021, titled as Balo Devi Vs. State of H.P. and Others, because in that event, service rendered by him on daily wage basis will also be taken into consideration for the purpose of qualifying service. 5. To the contrary, respondents by way of reply as well as instructions dated 06.10.2025, filed pursuant to order dated 25.08.2025, have claimed that petitioner was appointed on daily wage basis w.e.f 26.02.2001, after taking over the service from Private School and posted in Government Middle School Balh Tikkar, District Mandi. Petitioner served w.e.f. 26.02.2001 to 23.12.2009 i.e. 8 years 10 months and 21 days as daily wager. Services of the petitioner were regularised on 24.12.2009 and thereafter he superannuated on 31.03.2017 at the age of 58 years, after rendering regular service of 7 years, 3 months and 7 days. Though respondents have claimed that petitioner had rendered regular service of 7 years, 3 months and 7 days w.e.f. 24.12.2009 to 31.03.2017, but have further admitted in instructions dated 06.10.2025 that even after granting the benefit in light of Baldev Singh (supra), his total regular service becomes 9 years, 3 months and 7 days, which is less than the total minimum qualifying service of 10 years for grant of pension under the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. 2025:HHC:33956 -4- 6. Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, vehemently argued that benefit of Sunder Singh (supra), as sought to be taken by the petitioner, can only be granted to such Class-IV employees, who were regularised prior to 15.05.2003 and they were similarly placed Class-IV employees, who were duly regularised and have completed 10 years of daily wage service and whose cases were similar to Sunder Singh (supra). 7. Having heard learned counsel representing the parties and perused material available on record, this Court finds that even for the sake of arguments, if it is presumed that petitioner had retired on 31.03.2017 at the age of 58 years after rendering 7 years, 3 months and 7 days of regular service, he shall be entitled to the benefit of judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sunder Singh (supra), wherein in Para 6, Hon’ble Apex Court held 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.” 7.1. As per aforesaid judgment, Class-IV employees who were recruited initially as daily wagers, such as Peon/Chowkidar/Sweeper/Farash/Malis/Rasoia etc. and thereafter their services were regularised pursuant to the decision in Mool Raj Upadhyaya Vs. State of H.P. and Others, 1994 Supp(2) SCC 316, 2025:HHC:33956 -5- under a Scheme, after 10 years of daily wage service rendered by such employees, daily wage service of 5 years rendered by them prior to their regularisation will be treated equal to one year of regular service for pension and if on that basis their services become more than 8 years but less than 10 years, their services will be reckoned as 10 years. Since petitioner herein was appointed as Peon on daily wage basis w.e.f. 26.02.2001 to 23.12.2009 and in that capacity, he rendered 8 years, 10 months and 21 days of service, service of 5 years rendered on daily wage basis were required to be considered equal to 1 year regular service, if it is so, regular service of 7 years, 3 months and 7 days rendered by the petitioner w.e.f. 24.12.2009 to 31.03.2017 shall become 8 years, 3 months and 7 days i.e. more than 8 years, if it is so, 8 years service rendered by the petitioner shall be reckoned as 10 years in terms of judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sunder Singh (supra). However, in the instant case, petitioner on account of the fact that he was appointed as a Peon on daily wage basis before 10.05.2001, he is also entitled to benefit of judgment rendered by this Court in Baldev Singh (supra), if it is so, he shall be deemed to have retired on 31.03.2019 i.e. after 9 years 3 months and 7 days of regular service. In both the eventualities, as has been taken note hereinabove, petitioner is entitled for benefit of daily wage service rendered by him prior to his regularisation for the purpose of computing qualifying service. 2025:HHC:33956 -6- 8. Though at this stage, Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, specifically referred to instructions dated 14.02.2019, issued by Additional Chief Secretary (Finance) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, to state that since petitioner was not similarly situate to Sunder Singh (supra) and his services were not regularised prior to 15.05.2003, he is not entitled to the benefit of Sunder Singh (supra), but such plea of him deserves outright rejection for the reason that aforesaid instructions are totally contrary to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sunder Singh (supra). 9. At the cost of repetition, it is once again noticed that Hon’ble Apex Court categorically directed in Sunder Singh (supra) that w.e.f. 01.01.2018, the appellants or other similarly placed Class-IV employees will be entitled to pension if they have duly regularised 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 and if on that basis, their services are more than 8 years but less than 10 years, their service will be reckoned as 10 years. At no point of time, Hon’ble Apex Court made stipulation with regard to regularisation prior to 15.05.2003. Hon’ble Apex Court in afore judgment categorically stated that appellants i.e. Sunder Singh etc. represent Class-IV employees, who were recruited initially as daily wagers such as Peon/Chowkidar/Sweeper/Farash/Malis/Rasoia etc. and their services were regularised pursuant to the decision in Mool Raj Upadhyaya 2025:HHC:33956 -7- (supra). Since petitioner herein was also appointed as Peon on daily wage basis, he is similarly situate to Sunder Singh (supra), if it is so, he is also entitled to the benefit flowing from the judgment passed in Sunder Singh (supra). Moreover, this Court finds from the communication dated 14.08.2024, issued by Sr. Accounts Officer, Office of Accountant General, H.P. addressed to Principal, Government Senior Secondary School, Gagal, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh, that case of the petitioner was returned with remarks “total Qualifying service of Mr. Rakesh Kumar is 09 years, 07 months and 08 days and he is not eligible for pension as per CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. However, if weightage of daily wage service is given to the petitioner in terms of H.P. Government (Pension) Department order dated 18.01.2022, he becomes eligible for pension, but for that purpose case may be returned back, enabling respondent-Accountant General to issue Pension Payment Order.” 10. It is quite apparent from the aforesaid communication addressed by the office of Accountant General that even office of Accountant General was aware with regard to applicability of Sunder Singh (supra) in the case of petitioner and as such, advised respondent- department to send revised pension case of the petitioner, but for totally unjustifiable reason, respondents rejected the case of the petitioner. 11. Consequently, in view of the above, this Court finds merit in the present petition and accordingly the same is allowed. Respondents are directed to process the case of the petitioner for pension along with 2025:HHC:33956 -8- all consequential benefits, taking into consideration the service rendered by him on daily wage basis prior to his regularisation in terms of judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sunder Singh (supra) expeditiously, preferably, within a period of four weeks. Needless to say, after receipt of revised pension case of the petitioner from respondents No.1 to 3, respondent No.4 shall authorise the pension in favour of the petitioner at the earliest, preferably within a period of four weeks. The present petition is disposed in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge October 07, 2025 (Rajeev Raturi)