2025:HHC:20080 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.3813 of 2024 Date of Decision: 26.06.2025 ____________________________________________________________ Smt. Mehru Devi …….Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and Others ….Respondents ____________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Lalit Kumar Sehgal, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol and Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for State. Mr. Tek Ram Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.6. ____________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral): Petitioner herein is aggrieved of order dated 26.12.2023 (Annexure P-9), issued under the signatures of Executive Engineer, JSV Division, Anni, whereby respondents, after having considered the case of the petitioner in terms of judgment dated 16.09.2023, passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No.4557 of 2023, tilted as Mehru Devi Vs. State of H.P. and Others, decided on 16.09.2023 (Annexure P- 8), rejected the prayer of the petitioner for grant of pension on the pretext that till the time review petition filed by Government of Himachal Pradesh against the judgment passed by this Court in CWP No.3598 of 2019, titled Balo Devi Vs. State of H.P. and Others, is not decided, prayer made on behalf of the petitioner cannot be accepted. 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2025:HHC:20080 2 2. Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the record are that on 01.03.1995, petitioner came to be appointed as part time worker in the respondent-IPH Department and in afore capacity, she joined at IPH Sub-Division Anni, District Kullu, Himachal Pradesh. Respondents issued a Policy dated 27.02.2004, providing therein that part time employees, who have completed ten years of continuous service as on 31.12.2003, shall be made daily wager. Respondents issued another Policy dated 05.07.2007, providing therein that part time employees, who have completed ten years of continuous service as on 31.03.2006, will be made daily wager. In the year 2008, respondents converted petitioner into daily wager and in afore capacity, she joined her services as daily wager in the office of Assistant Engineer, IPH Sub- Division Anni, District Kullu, Himachal Pradesh. In the year 2012, Government of Himachal Pradesh promulgated Policy, providing therein that daily waged/contingent paid workers, working in all the departments of the State Government, who have completed seven years of continuous service are entitled for regularization. In the year 2016, another Notification was issued by respondent/State providing therein that daily waged/contingent paid workers, working in all the departments of State Government, shall be regularized, after seven years of daily waged service. Respondents vide order dated 22.07.2016, regularized the services of the petitioner as Class IV Sweeper and she joined her services in the office of Assistant Engineer, IPH Sub-Division Anni, 2025:HHC:20080 3 District Kullu, Himachal Pradesh. In the year 2023, petitioner approached this Court by way of CWP No.4557 of 2023, praying therein that she be held entitled for daily wage status immediately after completion of ten years of service as part time w.e.f. 02.03.2005 instead of 31.03.2008 and thereafter she be regularized after completion of seven years of daily wagers service w.e.f. 03.03.2012. Afore petition never came to be disposed of on merits, rather Coordinate Bench of this Court, having taken note of the judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.6309 of 2017, tilted as Sunder Singh Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Others, decided on 08.03.2018 and judgment dated 19.05.2022, passed by this Court in CWP No.248 of 2017, titled as State of Himachal Pradesh and Others Vs. Girdhari Lal, directed respondents to consider and decide the case of the petitioner for redressal of her grievances, in light of judgments, detailed hereinabove. In afore background, respondents reconsidered the case of the petitioner, but vide impugned order dated 26.12.2023 (Annexure P-9), ordered that till the time review petition filed by the State of Himachal Pradesh in Balo Devi’s case is not decided, prayer made on behalf of the petitioner cannot be considered. In the aforesaid background, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings. 3. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. Lalit Kumar Sehgal, learned counsel representing the petitioner is that since case of 2025:HHC:20080 4 the petitioner is squarely covered by the judgment passed by Division Bench of this Court in Girdhari Lal (supra), wherein it has been held that part time employee shall be entitled for daily wage status after ten years of part time service, there is no occasion, if any, for respondents to rely upon the judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in Balo Devi case, which has otherwise attained finality. 4. Respondents have filed reply through respondent No.3, wherein, it has been averred that the services of the petitioner were brought on daily wage service as per policy prevalent in the year 2007 and thereafter, her services were regularized as per Policy of regularization in vogue in 2016, which was accepted by the petitioner without any protest, as such, she is estopped to file the petition. Besides this, it has been averred on behalf of the respondents that the present petition is barred by delay and laches, inasmuch petitioner has approached this Court after a lapse of 15 years and, claim being highly stale, cannot be entertained at this belated stage. Mr. B.C. Verma, learned Additional Advocate General further states that otherwise, at the time when petitioner is seeking conversion to daily wage, there was no policy in vogue for such conversion and her services were rightly converted to daily wage in the year 2007 and thereafter, she was brought on regular establishment on 22.7.2016. Mr. Verma, further states that since petitioner has not completed minimum requisite regular service of ten years, she is not entitled for any pension. Mr. Verma, 2025:HHC:20080 5 further states that entertaining such a stale claim at this stage, may set up a precedent for other similarly situate persons. 5. While making this Court peruse judgment passed by Division Bench of this Court in Girdhari Lal (supra) (Annexure P-7), which has been otherwise authored by this Court, learned counsel representing the petitioner vehemently argued that in afore judgment, Division Bench of this Court, having taken note of Policy dated 27.02.2004, has categorically held that as per scheme, part time workers who had completed ten years’ continuous service as on 31.12.2013 in all the Departments except Ayurveda and Education were to be conferred daily wage status, meaning thereby, all the part time Class IV employees, who had completed ten years continuous service on or before 31.12.2003 had become eligible for conversion of their services from part time to daily wage in terms of policy dated 27.02.2004. 6. Learned Additional Advocate General has not been able to dispute that aforesaid judgment passed by Division Bench of this Court in Girdhari Lal (supra) has attained finality, rather, same has been implemented in number of cases. Otherwise also, careful perusal of impugned order dated 26.12.2023 (Annexure P-9), if perused in its entirety, it clearly reveals that judgment passed in Girdhari Lal (supra) has been purposely not applied in the case of the petitioner for the reason that there is apprehension of opening of pandora-box, but 2025:HHC:20080 6 certainly that cannot be a reason to deny the legitimate claim of the petitioner. 7. In aforesaid judgment, Division Bench of this Court has categorically held that in terms of Policy decision dated 27.02.2004, persons who are working on part time basis and had completed ten years’ continuous service as on 31.12.2013, shall be made daily wager. Since in the case at hand, petitioner had completed ten years of part time service on 01.03.2005, she ought to have been made daily wager on afore date. Had respondents converted the services of the petitioner from part time to daily wager on afore date, she would have been regularized in the year 2012 in terms of Policy of 2012 and 2016. After her being regularized, if any, in the year 2012, petitioner would have rendered more than ten years service prior to her superannuation on 30.06.2023, however, on account of delay in conversion of service of the petitioner from part time to daily wage in terms of Policies dated 27.02.2004 and 05.07.2007, petitioner, who was regularized on 22.07.2016, superannuated after having rendered service of less than ten years, as a result thereof, she was rendered ineligible for pension, for which definitely ten years of regular service is necessary. 8. Moreover, this Court finds that otherwise also reasons assigned in the impugned order, thereby rejecting the claim of the petitioner is wholly untenable because by now review petition filed by respondents/State against the judgment passed in Balo Devi’s case has 2025:HHC:20080 7 been dismissed. Otherwise also, there is no requirement, if any, to apply Balo Devi’s judgment in the case of the petitioner, who admittedly is covered in terms of Girdhari Lal’s (supra). As per Girdhari Lal (supra), part time employee after his/her having completed ten years service was required to be converted to daily wage. Admittedly, in the case at hand, petitioner, who was appointed on part time basis on 01.03.1995 was converted to daily wager in the year 2008, whereas she ought to have been converted into daily wager in the year 2005. Had respondents converted the services of the petitioner from part time to daily wager in the year 2005, she would have been regularized in the year 2012 itself, in terms of Policy of 2012 and 2016. Similarly, on account her regularization, if any, in the year 2012, petitioner would have rendered more than ten years of service before her superannuation in the year 2023. 9. Consequently, in view of the above, this Court finds merit in the present petition and accordingly the same is allowed. Impugned order dated 26.12.2023 (Annexure P-9) is quashed and set-aside and respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner in light of Girdhari Lal (supra), expeditiously, preferably, within a period of four weeks. Needless to say, authority concerned while doing the needful in terms of instant order shall afford an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and pass detailed speaking order and in case petitioner is found similar situate to the petitioner in Girdhari Lal (supra), then she 2025:HHC:20080 8 shall also be granted similar benefits, as have been granted in afore case, expeditiously, preferably, within two months. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge June 26, 2025 (Rajeev Raturi)