IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.1481 of 2020 Date of Decision: 07.10.2025 __________________________________________________________ Ramesh Chand …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. ….Respondents __________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. R.L. Chaudhary and Mr. H.R. Sidhu, Advocates. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, Mr. Rajan Kahol, Additional Advocate General with Mr. Ravi Chauhan & Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocate General. __________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. R.L. Chaudhary, learned counsel representing the petitioner, is that though service rendered by the petitioner in the capacity of work charge, which was followed by regularization, ought to have been taken into consideration by the respondents, while computing the qualifying service for the purpose of pension, but since such prayer of the petitioner was not acceded to, he is compelled to approach this Court in the instant proceedings filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying therein for the following main reliefs:- “a. That writ of mandamus may kindly be issued, directing the respondent authorities to consider the case of the petitioner for grant of 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? -2- pension from the due date with all consequential benefits in light of the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Surender Singh Vs. State of H.P. b. That writ of mandamus may kindly be issued directing the respondent authorities to give regularization/wor charge status to the petitioner from the due date i.e. June, 2002 on completion of 8 years daily wage service with 240 days in light of the ration laid down by this Hon’ble Court in Rakesh Kumar Vs. State of H.P. and Ravi Kumar Vs. State of H.P. & others.” 2. Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the pleadings adduced on record by the respective parties, are that in the month of June, 1994, petitioner was engaged on daily wage basis as Work Inspector in the respondent-department. After 13 years of his appointment as Daily wager, services of the petitioner were regularized on 29.03.2007. Since as per law laid down by Division Bench of this Court in CWP No.2735 of 2010, titled as Rakesh Kumar Vs. State of H.P. & others and law laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in Special Leave to Appeal (C) Nos.33570/2010, titled as Ravi Kumar Vs. State of H.P. & others, petitioner herein was entitled for regularization after completion of eight years daily wage service with 240 days in each calendar year and such benefit was not granted to him, he approached this Court by way of CWP No.5655 of 2010, which was allowed. Though at first instance, respondent-department assailed the judgment passed by this Court by filing SLP before Hon’ble Apex Court, but the same was also dismissed, as a result thereof, petitioner was ultimately granted work charge status w.e.f 01.01.2003. Thereafter, the petitioner again -3- approached erstwhile HP Administrative Tribunal by way of Original Application No.381 of 2015, seeking therein direction to the respondent- department to regularize the services of the petitioner after completion of eight years, in terms of judgment rendered by this Court in Rakesh Kumar (supra). Though erstwhile HP Administrative Tribunal allowed the original application, thereby directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization after completion of eight years daily wage service with 240 days in each calendar year in light of judgment passed by this Court in Rakesh Kumar (supra), but fact remains that afore prayer of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that he is a Class-III employee and cannot claim such parity with Class- IV employees in whose favour directions were issued by Division Bench of this Court in Rakesh Kumar (supra). After having rendered more than 18 years of service, petitioner ultimately superannuated in the year 2012, but since he was not paid pension, he has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein for the reliefs as have been reproduced hereinabove. 3. In nutshell, case of the petitioner, as has been projected in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. R.L. Chaudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner, is that since petitioner was granted work charge status w.e.f 01.01.2003 and thereafter, his services were regularized w.e.f 29.03.2007, service rendered by the petitioner in work charge capacity is also required to be taken into consideration for the -4- purpose of computing qualifying service. Mr. Chaudhary, submitted that after his being regularized, vide order dated 29.03.2007, petitioner worked in the respondent-department in the regular capacity till 2012 and in case service rendered by the petitioner in work charge capacity w.e.f 01.01.2003 till 29.03.2007 is taken into consideration, he can be said to have completed nine years of service. He further submitted that petitioner is entitled to benefit of counting of service in terms of judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in SLP No.6309 of 2017, titled as Sunder Singh & Others Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & others, wherein it came to be ruled that five years daily wage service of Class-IV employee shall be considered equal to one year regular service for pension. If it is so, petitioner, who prior to his granted benefit of work charge status w.e.f 01.01.2003 had been working on daily wage basis w.e.f June, 1994 i.e. eight years, is also entitled to the benefit of one year regular service in lieu of eight years daily wage service. Accordingly, total qualifying service comes out to be more than ten years and in that eventuality, respondents are under obligation to pay pension to the petitioner. 4. To the contrary, Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, vehemently argued that judgment rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in Sunder Singh (supra) cannot be made applicable in the case of the petitioner as he is a Class-III employee. He submitted that Sunder Singh’s judgment is applicable in the case of Class-IV employees. While inviting attention of this Court to para 6 of the -5- judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in Sunder Singh (supra), Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, attempted to argue that same is only applicable to Class-IV employees. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused material available on record, this Court finds that petitioner herein was engaged on daily wage basis as Work Inspector in the respondent- department in the month of June, 1994 and since then, he had been regularly working in the respondent-department till his superannuation in the year 2012, firstly in the capacity of daily wage employee, then on work charge basis and finally, he was regularized on 29.03.2007. 6. Question, which needs to be determined in the case at hand is that “Whether service rendered by the petitioner prior to his regularization in work charge capacity can be taken into consideration for the purpose of computing qualifying service or not?” 7. At this stage, it would be apt to take note of judgment passed by Division Bench of this Court in LPA No.151 of 2021, titled as State of H.P. & another Vs. Beli Ram, wherein it came to be specifically ruled that entire service rendered as work charge has to be counted for purpose of pension. Relevant paras of the afore judgment are extracted hereinbelow:- “22) The learned Single Judge has noticed that “work charged” status in State of HP is not for working in a temporary establishment of work charge or for person employed in a project, but it is a status conferred in the said State upon such daily wagers, who are to be continued after particular length of service for availability of work, but -6- without regularization for want of creation of a post by Government for his regularization/regular appointment. This is not disputed by the learned Additional Advocate General. 23) A Full bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Kesar Chand v. State of Punjab, AIR 1988 Punjab 265 (FB) had struck down Rule 3.17(ii) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules which, inter alia, provided that period of service in work-charged establishments shall not be counted as qualifying service. It held: “19. … It looks to be illogical that the period of service spent by an employee in a work-charged establishment before his regularisation has not been taken into consideration for determining his qualifying service. The classification which is sought to be made among government servants who eligible for pension and those who started as work-charged employees and their services regularised subsequently, and the others is not based on any intelligible criteria and, therefore, is not sustainable at law. After the services of a work-charged employee have been regularised, he is a public servant like any other servant. To deprive him of the pension is not only unjust and inequitable but is hit by the vice of arbitrariness, and for these reasons the provisions of sub-rule (ii) of Rule 3.17 of the Rules have to be struck down being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.” 24) SLP preferred against it was dismissed by the Supreme Court. The decision in Kesar Chand (Supra) was also approved by the Supreme Court in Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam vs. Bachan Singh, (2009) 14 SCC 793; Punjab SEB vs. Narata Singh, (2010) 4 SCC 317 and Prem Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, (2019) 10 SCC 516. 25) But the above decisions except Prem Singh (7 Supra) were not noticed by the Supreme Court in Uday Pratap Thakur (3 supra) cited by the learned Additional Advocate General. -7- 26) In Prem Singh (7 Supra) it was held: “ 34. …services rendered even prior to regularisation in the capacity of work-charged employees, contingency paid fund employees or non-pensionable establishment shall also be counted towards the qualifying service even if such service is not preceded by temporary or regular appointment in a pensionable establishment.” 27) Having regard to the above observations, the entire service rendered as work charged has to be counted for purposes of pension. 28) We may point out that a communication dt.25.11.1975 has been issued by the Secretary (PW) to the Govt. of HP to the Chief Engineers, HPPWD, whereby with the concurrence of the Finance Department, it has been clarified that all work charged employees, including temporary industrial workers are to be treated to be part of pensionable establishment. On the basis of the said decision, benefit had been given to several employees in the State of Himachal Pradesh by this Court. 29) The other decision cited by the learned Additional Advocate General is in Civil Appeal No. 1787 of 2023, titled as Director General, Doordarshan Prasar Bharti Corporation of India & another vs. Smt. Magi H. Desai, dt. 24.03.2023, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court had held that service rendered as casual/contractual basis cannot be said to be service rendered on a substantive appointment. 8. At this stage, it would also be apt to take note of Rule 13 of CCS (Pension) Rules, which reads as under:- “13. Service in State Governments (1) In the case of a Government servant belonging to a State Government, who was initially appointed in a pensionable establishment of the State Government on or before 31st December, 2003 and who is permanently transferred to a service or post to which these rules apply. Government in an officiating or temporary or substantive capacity shall qualify: -8- Provided that continuous service rendered under that Government in an officiating or temporary capacity shall qualify if that service is followed without interruption by substantive appointment in the State Government or the Central Government.” 9. Contention raised by learned Additional Advocate General representing the respondents-State that judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in Sunder Singh (supra) is not applicable to the Class-III employees deserves outright rejection, being wholly untenable. Division Bench of this Court in LPA No.196 of 2022, titled as Roop Lal Vs. State of H.P & Others, decided on 11.10.2023, has categorically held that when it comes to granting the benefit of counting service rendered on daily wage for the purpose of pension to Class-III employees, there is no significant respect in which persons concerned are distinguishable from Class-IV employees, rather for the said adjudication relevant is the period rendered towards daily wage by the concerned employee irrespective of the status of the employee, Class-III/ Class IV. Relevant paras of the afore judgment are extracted hereinbelow:- “17. In granting the benefit of counting service rendered on daily wage for the purpose of pension to class IV employees a standard of proportional equality, principles enunciated in the Directive Principles of State Policy were taken into account while considering conditions/circumstances of a class of employees which stood in the way of their access to the enjoyment of basic rights or claims of pension. 18. When it comes to granting the benefit of counting service rendered on daily wage for the purpose of pension to class III -9- employees there is no significant respect in which persons concerned are distinguishable from Class IV employees. As has already been stated supra in the case of Class IV employees Articles 14,38,39 and the Concept of “proportional equality” (egalitarian equality) have been read into the relevant pension rules and only thereafter a benefit of counting service rendered on daily wage for the purpose of pension has been accorded to the Class IV employees. Non grant / non extension of benefit of counting service rendered on daily wage for the purpose of pension to Class III employees by not reading Articles 14, 38, 39, the Concept of “proportional equality” (egalitarian equality) into the relevant pension rules would lead to a differential treatment to persons who are in no manner significantly different hence in the facts and attending circumstances would be unjustified. The extension of the same benefit in our considered view cannot be denied. Moreso, especially in view of Rafiq Masih's case 2015 (8) 334 wherein, Class III and Class IV employees on equitable considerations have been treated at par with respect to the right of the State (employer) to recover from them amounts paid de-hors the applicable service rules. 19. The claim herein is with respect to counting of service as rendered on daily wage basis before Regularization/ grant of work charge status towards qualifying service for grant of pension. For the said adjudication what is relevant is the period rendered towards daily wage by the concerned employee irrespective of the status of the employee, Class-III/ Class IV. 10. Similar view has been taken by Coordinate Bench of this Court, vide judgment dated 08.01.2024 passed in CWP No.213 of 2024, titled as Ram Saran Vs. State of H.P. & ors., wherein Court, having taken note of judgment passed by Division Bench of this Court as well as other judgments passed by Hon’ble Apex Court, directed respondents to consider the case of the petitioner (Class-III) for grant of pension in terms of mandate laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in Sunder Singh -10- (supra) and Balo Devi Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others reported in Latest HLJ 2022(HP) (2) (817). Relevant paras of the afore judgment are extracted hereinbelow:- “11. In the entirety of the facts stated above and the mandate of the law, laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sunder Singh’s and Balo Devi (supra), and the Division Bench of this Court in case of Roop Lal (supra), once the petitioner has completed eight years service [based on actual regular service rendered and regular service so arrived at after giving proportional weightage in lieu of daily wages service i.e. one year regular service for the years of daily wages service and two years regular service for ten years of daily wages service] then, this eight years service shall be reckoned as ten years service and this service shall qualify for pension. Accordingly, based on the regular service, so arrived at, in terms of the mandate of law in case of Sunder Singh, Balo Devi and Roop Lal (supra), once the petitioner has completed-rendered eight years of regular service, therefore, he is eligible and entitled to pension under the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, w.e.f. 01.01.2018 notionally; except the past arrears, which shall be restricted for a period of three years prior to the filing of writ petition [on 29.12.2023], in terms of the settled law. 12. In view of the above, the respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner (Class-III retiree) for grant of pension, in terms of the mandate of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sunder Singh, Balo Devi and by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Roop Lal (supra) notionally w.e.f. 01.01.2018; and upon consideration, in case, the petitioner is held entitled to pension then, the actual monetary benefits/arrears shall be confined for a period of three years preceding the filing of this writ petition, in terms of the mandate of law, in the case of Union of India versus Tarsem Singh (2008) 8 SCC 648; Shiv Dass versus Union of India and Others; (2007) 9 SCC 274; State of Madya Pradesh and Others versus Yogendra Shrivastava (2010) 12 SCC 538; Asger Ibrahim Amin Versus Life Insurance Corporation of India (2016) 13 SCC 797, followed in Rushibhai Jagdishchandra Pathak versus Bhavnagar Municipal Corporation CA No.4134 of 2022 [2022 SCC online SC 641] decided on -11- 18.5.2022, and arrears beyond three years cannot be claimed/granted. The consequential action be taken by the respondents within three months from today. 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 consider the case of the petitioner for grant of pension, after taking into consideration service rendered by him in work charge capacity followed by regular service as well as law laid down in Sunder Singh (supra), wherein it came to be specifically ruled that five years daily wage service shall be treated as one year regular service. Since petitioner has been fighting for his rightful claim for quite long, this Court hopes and trusts that needful shall be done by the respondents expeditiously, preferably within two months. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge October 07, 2025 (sunil)