2025:HHC:39491 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP No. 4104 of 2019 Decided on : 21.11.2025 ____________________________________________________ __ Bajiru Ram ...Petitioner Versus State of HP and others ...Respondents ________________________________________________________ Coram Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the petitioner: Mr. Sandeep Kumar Pandey, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Pranay Pratap Singh, Additional Advocate General and Ms. Swati Draik, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents No. 1 to 3. None for respondent No. 4. Jiya Lal Bhardwaj , Judge (Oral) By way of the instant writ petition, the petitioner has prayed that the order dated 26.08.2019 (Annexure P-3), passed by the respondents-State be quashed and further directions be issued to the respondents-State to release pension and other retiral benefits. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that he was engaged as Mason on daily wage basis in the month of January, 1985 with the respondents-State and thereafter his services were regularized as Beldar w.e.f. 01.01.1995. On attaining the age of superannuation, he 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:39491 was retired on 02.07.2004. It is the claim of the petitioner that since he has worked with the respondents-State from January, 1985, on daily wage basis for 10 years till 1995, and thereafter on regular basis w.e.f. 01.01.1995 till 02.07.2004, he is entitled for pension in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 6309 of 2017, titled, Sunder Singh vs. The State of Himachal Pradesh & others. 3. The respondents-State has filed the reply to the petition and submitted that though the petitioner was engaged as Mason on daily wage basis in the month of January, 1985, but his services were regularized as Beldar w.e.f. 01.01.1995. Since the petitioner has retired on 02.07.2004, he did not complete 10 years’ of qualifying service required as per the provisions of Rule 49(1) of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, for entitling him to pension. It is the case of the respondents-State that the petitioner has only rendered nine years and six months of service. 4. The issue raised by the petitioner in the present petition is no more res integra in view of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sunder Singh’s case (supra), wherein it has been held that in case an employee has rendered more than 8 years service including daily wage services of 10 years, he is 3 2025:HHC:39491 entitled to weightage of service. A similar view has been reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 4792 of 2022, titled, Balo Devi vs. State of HP & others, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court after considering the earlier judgment passed in Sunder Singh’s case (supra), has held that in case the services rendered by an employee on daily wage basis is counted, and the total length of service comes more than 8 years, but less than 10 years, the services rendered by an employee shall be taken as 10 years. 5. The relevant paras of the judgment passed in Balo Devi’s case (supra) is reproduced hereinbelow:- We find it difficult to accept the submission of Mr. Patwalia. If the submission is accepted, the last line of paragraph 6 would lose any significance or meaning. The intent of this Court was quite clear that:- (a) The services rendered as a regular employee may first be computed. (b) To the service as rendered to above, the component at the rate of one year of regular service for every five years of service as a daily wager, be added. (c) If both the components as detailed in Paras a & b hereinabove, take the length of service to a level of more than eight years but less than ten years, in terms of last sentence of paragraph 6 of the Order, the services shall be reckoned as ten years. In the circumstances, we accept the contention raised by Mr. M.C. Dhingra, and set aside the order dated 13.05.2019 rejecting the claim 4 2025:HHC:39491 made by the appellant. Allowing the writ petition preferred by the appellant, it is declared that the husband of the appellant and after the death, the appellant would be entitled to pension as claimed. 6. Admittedly, in the present case, even as per the stand taken by the respondents-State in the reply, the petitioner had rendered nine years and six months of services on regular basis and as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforementioned judgments, the claim of the petitioner could not have been rejected, and thus order dated 26.08.2019 is quashed and set aside. 7. Resultantly, the writ petition preferred by the petitioner is allowed and the respondent-State is directed to release the pension in favour of the petitioner, w.e.f. 01.01.2018, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of copy of the judgment. Since the petitioner is litigating in the Court, the respondents-State is also directed to pay the arrears of pension within the same period alongwith interest at the rate of 6% per annum, from the date when the pension fell due till its actual payment. Application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. 21 st November , 2025 ( Jiya Lal Bhardwaj ) (Anurag) Judge