IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.14469 of 2024 Date of Decision: 01.12.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Smt. Soma Devi ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Ms. Babita Chauhan, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for the respondents-State. Mr. Tek Ram Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.4. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for the following main relief:- “a. That the respondents may be ordered to pay pension to the petitioner w.e.f May, 2023, after adding one year of daily wage service to the total qualifying service of the petitioner and the same may be read as 10 years, with all consequential benefits.” 2. In nutshell, the grouse of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Ms. Babita Chauhan, learned counsel representing the petitioner, is that though in the case at hand, petitioner, before her superannuation, rendered regular service of six years, 8 months and 20 days and thereafter, on being granted two years of regular service in lieu of ten years of daily wage service, in light of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 6309 of 2017, Sunder Singh vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, the petitioner’s total regular service comes to eight years. In such a situation, the same is required to be considered as ten years for pensionary benefits in terms of Sunder Singh (supra), but yet respondents have denied the pension to the petitioner on the ground that she has not completed ten years regular service as per Section 49 of CCS (Pension), Rules. 3. Precisely, the facts of the case as emerge from the pleadings adduced on record by the respective parties are that petitioner herein was engaged as Beldar in the respondent-department in the year 1994 and thereafter, in the year 2010, her services were regularized. On 30.01.2015, petitioner herein superannuated on her attaining the age of 58 years by rendering regular service of four years, eight months and 20 days. Subsequently, vide judgment passed by Full Bench of this Court in CWP No.2711 of 2017, titled Baldev Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Others, along with connected matters, it was held that Class-IV employees, who were engaged prior to 01.05.2001, shall retire on attaining the age of 60 years. 4. Having taken note of aforesaid judgment passed by Full Bench of this Court, Government itself issued Notification dated 2 28.04.2023, as a result thereof, petitioner herein came to be allowed the benefit of two years on notional basis and by extending such benefit, his total service comes to 6 years, 8 months and 20 days. 5. Now, precise grouse of the petitioner is that respondents, while calculating the qualifying the service of the petitioner for the purpose of pension, ought to have taken into consideration the services rendered by her w.e.f 1994 till 2010, in terms of judgment passed by Hon’ble in Sunder Singh (supra), wherein it came to be ruled that in lieu of five years daily wage service, daily wage employees shall get weightage of one year regular service and in that eventuality, if his/her service comes out to be more than 8 years, same shall be reckoned as 10 years. Admittedly, in the case at hand, petitioner, before her regularization, served the department on daily wage basis for more than ten years, meaning thereby, she is required to be given weightage of two years regular service and in that eventuality, her regular service would come out to be more than 8 years, 8 months and 20 days. Since in Sunder Singh (supra), which further came to be clarified in Civil Appeal No.4792 of 2022, titled as Balo Devi & others Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, it was held that if, after adding the weightage of regular service in lieu of service rendered on daily wage basis, total service of the employee concerned comes out to be more than eight years, same shall be reckoned as ten years. It is 3 not understood that how and under what circumstances, respondents have attempted to refute the claim of the petitioner for pension on the ground that she has not completed ten years service, whereas in the case at hand, petitioner can be said to have completed regular service of 8 years, 8 months and 20 months and the same is required to be considered as 10 years. 6. Consequently, in view of the above, present petition is allowed and respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for pension, considering her to have rendered regular service of more than ten years, as detailed hereinabove, expeditiously, preferably within four weeks from today. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. December 01, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (sunil) Judge 4