IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.8069 of 2025 Date of Decision: 2.12.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Nimo Devi ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Ms. Manjeet Kaur, Advocate vice Mr. Naveen K. Bhardwaj, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General and Mr. Ravi Chauhan & Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General, for the respondent-State. Mr. Rajesh Kosh, Advocate, for respondent No.4. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with order dated 1.1.2025 (Annexure P-3) issued from the office of Principal Accountant General (A&E) Himachal Pradesh, thereby returning pension case of the petitioner, petitioner has approached this court in the instant proceedings, praying therein for following main reliefs: “i) That respondent department may kindly be directed to give pension and other pensionary benefits to the petitioner from due date with interest. ii) That the annexure P-3 (office order dated 1-1-2025) may kindly be quashed and set aside.” - 2 - 2. Facts of the case as emerge from the pleadings adduced on record by the respective parties are that petitioner joined the service in the respondent department as part time Sweeper in the year 1985 and thereafter, on 20.5.2005, her services from part time to daily wage were converted. Subsequently vide order dated 8.7.2014, issued by the Director General & Commandant General, Home Guards & Civil Defence, Himachal Pradesh, services of the petitioner were regularized against the vacant post of Sweeper in the pay band Rs. 4900- 10680+GP 1300/-. With effect from afore date, petitioner kept on discharging her duties till 31.3.2024, on which date, she got superannuated. Petitioner herein before her superannuation worked on daily wage basis w.e.f. 20.5.2005 to 13.7.2014 i.e. 9 years, 1 month and 23 days and thereafter on regular basis w.e.f. 8.7.2014 to 31.3.2024 i.e. 9 years, 1 month and 23 days. Immediately after her superannuation, petitioner applied for pension, but till date, same has not been sanctioned in favour of the petitioner on the premise that she has not completed ten years of service in terms of Rule 49 of CCS Pension Rules. 3. Pursuant to notice issued in the instant proceedings, respondents have filed reply, wherein, facts as have been noticed herein above, have not been disputed, but an attempt has been made to refute the claim of the petitioner on the ground that respondent had forwarded case of the petitioner to the office of Accountant General for - 3 - grant of pensionary benefits, but same was returned vide communication dated 1.1.2025 (Annexure P-3). 4. Respondent No.4 has also filed reply, stating therein that in terms of notification No. FIN (Pen) A (3)-10/2016 dated 14.2.2019, petitioner is not entitled to pension because she was appointed against the post in question after 14.5.2003. 5. In nutshell, case of the petitioner as has been canvassed by Ms. Manjeet Kaur, learned counsel for the petitioner, is that case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the judgments passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 6309 of 2017, titled Sunder Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors, decided on 8.3.2018 and Civil Appeal No. 4792 of 2022 (arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 18830/2021), titled as “Balo Devi v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors, decided on 18.7.2022, wherein it has been categorically held that five years service rendered by the daily wage employee prior to his/her regularization shall be counted as one year regular service and in case after adding aforesaid one year in lieu of daily wage service, regular service of the petitioner comes out to be more than eight years, same shall be reckoned as 10 years. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since in the case at hand, petitioner rendered regular service of 9 years, 1 month and 23 days i.e. 8.7.2014 to 31.3.2024 and prior to this, she had rendered daily wage service w.e.f. 20.5.2005 to 13.7.2014, total - 4 - regular service of the petitioner comes out to be more than ten years, but yet petitioner is being wrongly denied pensionary benefits. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that petitioner was not appointed in the year 2003, as has been claimed by respondent No.4, rather she had been working in the department w.e.f. year1985. 7. Learned Additional Advocate General while refuting the aforesaid submission made at the behest of the petitioner submitted that since services of the petitioner were regularized on 8.7.2014, no illegality can be said to have been committed by respondent No.4 while observing vide communication dated 1.1.2025 that case of the petitioner is not covered in terms of notification dated 14.2.2019. 8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused material available on record, this court is persuaded to agree with learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is required to be given benefit of one additional year in lieu of 9 years and 8 months’ daily wage service rendered by her prior to her regularization w.e.f. 8.7.2014. If aforesaid benefit is extended to the petitioner, her regular service comes out to be more than ten years. In that eventuality, petitioner is entitled to pensionary benefits in terms of Rule 49 of the CCS Pension Rules. Since in the case at hand, petitioner had joined the respondent department as part time Sweeper in the year 1985 and thereafter, her services were converted from part time to daily wage on - 5 - 20.5.2005, coupled with the fact that subsequently, her services were regularized vide order dated 8.7.2014, this Court is not persuaded to agree with learned counsel for the respondents that petitioner was appointed in the department after 14.5.2003, therefore not entitled for pension. 9. Consequently, in view of the above, this court finds merit in the present petition and accordingly, same is allowed. Respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for pension under Old Pension Scheme in terms of observations and findings rendered herein above, expeditiously, preferably, within six weeks. Needless to say, in the event of grant of pension to the petitioner, she will be entitled to all consequential benefits from the due date. 10. In the aforesaid terms, present petition is disposed of alongwith pending applications, if any. December 2, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (manjit) Judge