IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 282/2023 Decided on: 13.11.2025 Rattan Chand …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Anr. .…Respondents. ………………………………………………………………………………. Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner: Mr. Vikrant Thakur, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General. Jyotsna Rewal Dua , J Even though the reply has not been filed, however, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard at this stage. 2. This writ petition has been filed for the grant of following substantive reliefs: - “(i) That the writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction may kindly be issued quashing the impugned order dated 06.10.2018 (Annexure P-1) being illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory, unconstitutional and against the settled law of service jurisprudence. (ii) That the writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction may kindly be issued directing the respondents to count daily wage service for the purpose of 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 pension in view of the judgment/order of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.6309/2017 titled as “Sunder Singh Vs. State of H.P. & Ors.” 2. Respondents have rejected the case of the petitioner under office order dated 06.10.2018 (Annexure P-1) for grant of pension on the ground that she has to her credit 9 years and 3 months of regular service. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that apart from 9 years & 3 months of regular service, petitioner has also rendered 15 years of daily waged service as Class-III employee (Mason), therefore, petitioner is entitled for pensionary benefits in terms of law laid down in Sunder Singh Vs. State of H.P. & Ors.2 Balo Devi & others Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others3 as also in Roop Lal vs. State of H.P. & Ors.4 In terms of Roop Lal4 the decision rendered in Sunder Singh2 and Balo Devi3 has been made applicable to Class-III employee as well. 4. The above being the legal position, the respondents are directed to reconsider the case of the petitioner afresh, keeping in view the facts of the case as well as the aforesaid decisions. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 06.10.2018 (Annexure P-1) is 2Civil Appeal No. 6309 of 2017, decided on 08.03.2018 3 Civil Appeal No.4792 of 2022 decided on 18.07.2022 4 SLP (C) No.1007/2024 3 quashed and set aside. Respondent No.2/competent authority is directed to consider the case of the petitioner afresh for grant of pensionary benefits, in accordance with law and in light of the aforesaid decisions, within a period of four weeks. The decision so taken shall be communicated to the petitioner. 5. The instant petition is disposed of in above terms. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge 13th November, 2025(rohit)