IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No.4682 of 2025 Decided on: 14th May, 2025 _________________________________________________________________ Begmu ....Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. …Respondents _________________________________________________________________ Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua 1 Whether approved for reporting? _________________________________________________________________ For the petitioner: Mr. Manohar Lal Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Y.P.S.Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General for respondents No.1 to 4. Mr. Rangil Singh, Advocate vice Mr. T.R.Sharma,Advocate for respondent No.5. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Mr. Y.P.S.Dhaulta, learned Additional Advocate General and Mr. Rangil Singh, appearing vice Mr. T. R. Sharma, learned Counsel, accept service of notice on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 4 and respondent No.5, respectively. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes - 2 - Considering the order impugned in this case and the legal position governing the subject as on date, reply to the writ petition is not required to be called from the respondents. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, matter is heard at this stage. 2. Petitioner’s husband retired as Class-III employee on 31.10.2006. She has been denied family pension on the ground that her husband did not satisfy the condition of minimum required length of service. Petitioner seeks counting of daily wage service rendered by her husband towards qualifying service for the purpose of family pension and pensionary benefits. 3. The respondents vide office order dated 28.11.2024 have denied family pension and pensionary benefits to the petitioner on the ground that daily wage service rendered by her husband in the capacity of Class-III employee cannot be computed for the purpose of pension and pensionary benefits. In Roop Lal Versus State of H.P. & Others2, the decisions rendered in Sunder Singh Versus The State of 2 LPA No.196 of 2022, decided on 11.10.2023 - 3 - Himachal Pradesh & Ors.3 and Balo Devi & others Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others4 giving benefit of daily wage service to Class-IV employees have been held applicable to Class-III as well. Relevant portion from the decision reads as under:- “21. In view of the aforesaid proposition of law, we are of the considered view that the purpose of pension, the Constitutional mandate contained in Articles 14, 38, 39 of the Constitution of India and the doctrine of proportionate equality would be required to be read into the Rules as has been held by the Apex Court in Sunder Singh's case supra in order to give weightage of service rendered as daily wager towards regular service for the purpose of pension even to Class-III employees. 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. 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.” 3 Civil Appeal No.6309 of 2017, decided on 08.03.2018 4 Civil Appeal No.4792 of 2022, decided on 18.07.2022 - 4 - 4. It is a matter of record that SLP(C) No.1007 of 2024, instituted by the State against the aforesaid decision, has been dismissed by the Hon’ble Apex Court on 18.03.2025. 5. In view of above, this writ petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 28.11.2024 (Annexure P-8) is quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner afresh for grant of family pension in light of decision rendered in Roop Lal’s1 case within a period of six weeks from today. The order so passed be also 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 Judge May 14, 2025 R.Atal