IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.9052 of 2023 Decided on: 06.11.2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Desh Raj …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Bonit Thakur, Advocate vice Mr. A.K. Gupta, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. L.N.Sharma, Additional Advocate General and Ms. Menka Raj Chauha, Deputy Advocate General for respondents No. 1 to 4. Ms. Komal Chaudhary, Advocate, for respondent No. 5. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge The petitioner seeks directions to the respondents to pay him pension in terms of law laid down in Sunder Singh versus The State of Himachal Pradesh & others2, Balo Devi & Others versus Stateof Himachal Praedesh3 and Roop Lal versus State of H.P & Others.4 1 Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 Civil Appeal No. 6309 of 2017, decided on 08.03.2018 3 Civil Appeal No. 54792 of 2022, decided on 18.07.2022 4 LPA No. 196 of 2022, decided on 11.10.2023. 2 2. In reply filed by the respondents, it has been submitted that i) Petitioner was engaged on daily wages, ii) He was conferred work charge status w.e.f. 01.02.1995 and iii) Petitioner retired as Pump Operator (Class-III) from government service on 31.10.2003 on attaining age of superannuation. 3. According to the respondents, with effect from 01.02.1995 till petitioner’s superannuation on 31.10.2003, he had 08 years and 09 months of regular service to his credit. Since the regular service rendered by the petitioner fell short of 10 years of qualifying service required for grant of pension under CCS Rules, he is not entitled to pension. 4. In Roop Lal Versus State of H.P. & Others4, benefit of law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sunder Singh Versus The State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors.2 and Balo Devi & others Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others3 was ordered to be extended to Class-III employees as well. Relevant portion from the aforesaid decision reads as under:- “22. In view of the above discussion, respondent- State is directed to extend benefit of Daily Wage service to the petitioner, in terms of Sunder Singh's case, as explained in Balo Devi's case, for calculating qualifying service for the purpose of pension, and to extend all benefits of pension to the petitioner within one month from today. 3 However, the petitioner shall be entitled for monetary benefits three years prior to the date of filing of the petition. Benefits accruing beyond three years prior to filling of the petition, if any, shall be only on notional basis. 22-A. With respect to the cut-off date from which actual monetary benefits are to be extended, keeping in view the law laid down by Supreme Court in Sunder Singh’s and Balo Devi’s cases, it is further clarified that the petitioner shall be entitled for actual monetary benefits w.e.f. 1.1.2018 and the monetary benefits, if any, prior to 1.1.2018 shall only be on notional basis, but if the three years period, prior to filing of the petition, is subsequent to 1.1.2018, then the actual benefits shall be granted from such subsequent date.” Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that SLP(C) No.1007/2024 preferred by the State against the aforesaid decision has been dismissed by the Hon’ble Apex Court on 18.03.2025. 5. In the instant case, admittedly the petitioner has rendered 08 years and 09 months of regular service. Daily wage service rendered by the petitioner is also required to be taken into consideration and computed proportionally in terms of law laid down in Sunder Singh,2 Balo Devi & Others3 and Roop Lal and others4 for considering his eligibility for grant of pension. Ordered accordingly. Respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for grant of pension in view of law laid down in Sunder Singh,2 Balo Devi & Others3 and Roop Lal and others4 vis-a-vis the daily 4 waged as also the regular service rendered by him. This exercise be carried out within six weeks. Consequential benefits, if any accruing to the petitioner be also released in his favour within aforesaid period. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua November 6, 2025 Judge yogesh