IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 18894 of 2025 Decided on: 18.12.2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Padam Singh …..Petitioner Versus The Director, Treasuries, Accounts and Lotteries, H.P & another .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Ms. Lalita Verma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. L.N. Sharma, Additional Advocate General. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Mr. L.N. Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of respondents. In view of submissions made by learned counsel for parties, the order impugned herein and order being passed hereinafter, reply of the writ petition is not required to be called for from the respondents. 2. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, matter is heard at this stage. 1 Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 3. Petitioner’s representation to the respondents seeking applicability of Sunder Singh versus The State of Himachal Pradesh & others2 as clarified in Balo Devi and others versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others3 for the purpose of pension was rejected by respondent No.1 primarily on the ground that petitioner was engaged on daily wages basis in the year 2004, hence, his case was not situated similar to the case of Sunder Singh.2 According to the respondents, decision in Sunder Singh2 was applicable only to Class-IV employees who were initially engaged as daily wagers such as Peon/Chowkidar/Sweeper etc. and thereafter, their services were regularized pursuant to the decision rendered in Mool Raj Upadhyaya versus State of H.P and others.4 4. The reasoning in the impugned order rejecting the representation of the petitioner is not in consonance with law. The relevant portion from the decision rendered in Sunder Singh2 reads 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 2Civil Appeal No.6309/2017, decided on 08.03.2018. 3Civil Appeal No.4792/2022, decided on 18.07.2022. 41994 Suppl(2) SCC 316 3 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.” The above decision has further been clarified in Balo Devi3 as under:- “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.” The benefit of the above decisions has not been restricted to those employees whose services were regularized in terms of Mool Raj Upadhyaya4 decision. The benefit is applicable to all Class-IV as well as Class-III employees (Ref. Roop Lal vs. State of H.P. & Ors.5) for counting the daily wage service rendered by them for the purpose of qualifying services for grant of pension. Hence, the impugned decision dated 04.03.2024 is quashed and set aside with direction to respondent No.1/ Competent 5LPA No.196/2022, decided on 11.10.2023. 4 Authority to consider and decide the case of the petitioner afresh strictly in consonance with decisions rendered in Sunder Singh2 and Balo Devi3 within a period of six weeks from today. The decision so arrived at shall also be communicated to the petitioner. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua December 18, 2025 Judge yogesh