2025:HHC:42173 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP No.1528 of 2020 Decided on: 05 th December, 2025 _____________________________________________________ Bidhi Chand ....Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and another ...Respondents ______________________________________________________ Coram Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the petitioner: Mr. Arun Kumar, Advocate, vice Ms. Vidushi, Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Gobind Korla, Additional Advocate General. Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge (Oral) By way of present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed that the respondents may kindly be directed to release the pension to the petitioner on the basis of the judgment in O.A. No.823/2004, titled, Bidhi Chand vs. State of H.P. and another, decided on 08.11.2007 and further in view of decision in Civil Appeal No.6309 of 2017, titled, Sunder Singh vs. The State of Himachal Pradesh and others, decided on 08.03.2018. 2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the key facts for adjudication of the claim in the present writ petition are that the 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 petitioner was appointed on a daily wage basis as Blacksmith in the year 1984 with the respondents-State. After completion of 10 years’ service, he was conferred the work-charge status w.e.f. 01.01.1994. The petitioner has retired from service on 28.02.2003. However, his retiral benefits have not been paid to him. His prayer in the petition is to the effect that since he had rendered 10 years’ service on daily wage basis, the said period be counted for the purpose of granting him pension as per the decision in Sunder Singh’s case (supra), where 5 years’ service on daily wage basis has been ordered to be counted as 1 year regular service. 3. The respondents-State have filed reply to the petition and admitted the factum that the petitioner was conferred the work-charge status as Blacksmith w.e.f. 01.01.1994. It has also been admitted that the petitioner had earlier filed Original Application No.823 of 2004 before the erstwhile H.P. Administrative Tribunal, which was decided on 08.11.2007, wherein directions were given to take into account 50% of the daily wage service rendered by the petitioner while calculating his qualifying service for entitlement to pension and the amount to be paid to him. 3 4. The respondents-State, however, challenged the order dated 08.11.2007 by preferring the Writ Petition No.3465 of 2009 and the said writ petition was disposed of in terms of the decision rendered in CWP No.180 of 2001, titled, State of H.P. vs. Ram Lal and others, decided on 31.05.2012, wherein it was held that the daily wage service rendered by an employee before his regularization cannot be counted towards qualifying service for grant of pension under the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972. 5. However, after the decision rendered by this Court in Ram Lal’s case (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sunder Singh’s case (supra), has held that the services rendered by an employee on a daily wage basis have to be counted, provided that five years’ of daily wage service is to be counted as one year of regular service for pension. 6. Admittedly, in the present case, the petitioner has rendered 9 years and 2 months qualifying service as work-charge employee and thus he is covered as per the dictum of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sunder Singh’s case (supra), where it has been held that if an employee completes 8 years’ regular service including daily wage service, he is entitled to pension w.e.f. 4 01.01.2018. 7. Further, the issue regarding extending benefit to Class III employees like the petitioner herein is no more res integra in view of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP(C) No. 1007 of 2024, titled, The State of Himachal Pradesh and others vs. Roop Lal arising out of the judgment and order dated 11.10.2023 passed in LPA No.196 of 2022, titled, Roop Lal vs. The State of H.P. and others, wherein it has been held that even Class III employees are covered under the work-charge establishment. In the present case, the petitioner was working as Blacksmith, which fact has not been denied by the respondents-State while filing reply and thus the services rendered by him on daily wage basis, prior to the grant of work- charge status for the purpose of qualifying service towards pension under the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 are liable to be counted. Even otherwise, once the petitioner has rendered more than 8 years’ regular service, he is entitled to pension as per the dictum in Sunder Singh’s case (supra). 8. Accordingly, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sunder Singh’s case (supra), the writ petition preferred by the petitioner is allowed and the respondents 5 are directed to pay pension to the petitioner w.e.f. 01.01.2018 along with interest @ 9% per annum. In case the amount of pension along with arrears is not released to the petitioner within three months, the respondents shall pay interest @ 12% per annum on the amount of arrears of pension. 9. The petition is accordingly disposed of. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. 05 th December, 2025 ( Jiya Lal Bhardwaj ) (ankit) Judge