IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.2783 of 2024 Date of Decision: 20.06.2025 __________________________________________________________ Sarla 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. Surinder Saklani, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, with Mr. Rajan Kahol and Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for State. __________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral): By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for following main relief: “a) That a writ in the nature of mandamus may very kindly be issued thereby directing the respondents to grant pension to the petitioner from the due date with all consequential benefits alongwith interest for delayed payment.” 2. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. Surinder Saklani, learned counsel representing the petitioner is that though petitioner herein is eligible for pension on account of her having rendered service of nine years and nine months as regular employee and six years on daily wage basis, but yet she is being denied pension for totally unjustifiable reasons. 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 3. Facts, as emerge from the pleadings, adduced on record by respective parties are that in the year 1997, petitioner was initially engaged as Part Time Water Carrier at GPS, Takrehar, Education Block Dharampur-II, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh. On 11.07.2006, services of the petitioner along with other similarly situate persons were converted to Whole Time Contingent Paid Employee on daily wage basis. On 30.07.2012, services of the petitioner were regularized. After her being regularized, petitioner rendered nine years and nine months service as a regular employee and superannuated on 30.04.2022. Since petitioner did not render regular service of ten years prior to her superannuation, she was not granted pension, however, subsequently, pursuant to judgments rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.6309 of 2017 titled Sunder Singh Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors., Civil Appeal No.4792 of 2022 titled Balo Devi Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. and LPA No. 196 of 2022 titled as Roop Lal Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors., petitioner became eligible for pension and as such, approached respondents for grant of pension, but her plea was rejected on the ground that services rendered by her, prior to her regularization, were not on daily wage basis, but on whole time contingent paid basis. 4. Though, reply filed by the respondents, if perused in its entirety, nowhere disputes factum with regard to petitioner’s having rendered service of nine years and nine months prior to her 3 superannuation, but attempt has been made to defeat the claim of the petitioner on the ground that six year service, claimed to be rendered by the petitioner on daily wage basis, was not on daily wage basis, rather the same was on whole time contingent paid basis. 5. Mr. Ravi Chauhan, learned Deputy Advocate General, while fairly admitting that in terms of judgments rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in Sunder Singh (supra) and Balo Devi (supra), five years service rendered on daily wage basis is required to be considered as one year regular service, stated that since petitioner has never worked on daily wage basis, rather, on whole time contingent paid basis, no illegality can be said to have been committed by the respondents while rejecting the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner. 6. To the contrary, Mr. 6. To the contrary, Mr. Surinder Saklani, learned counsel representing the petitioner, while making this Court peruse judgments rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in Sunder Singh (supra) and Balo Devi (supra), vehemently argued that service rendered by the petitioner prior to her regularization, as whole time contingent paid basis or daily wage basis, is required to be taken into consideration for computing the qualifying period for the purpose of pension. He submitted that though service rendered by the petitioner as whole time contingent paid is required to be considered as a daily wage basis, but even otherwise, in terms of judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in Balo Devi (supra), services, if any, rendered by Class-IV employee for a period of eight 4 years, shall be reckoned as ten years and as such, petitioner, who has rendered services on regular basis for a period of nine years and nine months, shall be deemed to have rendered service of more than ten years, if it is so, she is entitled to be granted pension. 7. Before ascertaining the correctness of rival submission made by learned counsel representing the parties, it would be apt to take note of following Para of judgment, passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in Sunder Singh (supra), which reads as under: “6. Accordingly, we direct that w.e.f. 01.01.2018, the appellants or other similarly placed Class-IV employees will be entitled to pension if they have been duly regularized and have been completed total service for more than 10 years. Daily wage service of 5 years will be treated equal to one year or regular service for pension. If on that basis, their services are more than 8 years but less than 10 years, their service will be reckoned as ten years.” 8. Reliance is further placed upon judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in Prem Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, (2019) 10 SCC 516, which reads as under: “34. As it would be unjust, illegal and impermissible to make aforesaid classification to make the Rule 3(8) valid and non discriminatory, we have to read down the provisions of Rule 3(8) and hold that services rendered even prior to regularisation in the capacity of work-charged employees, contingency paid fund employees or non-pensionable establishment shall also be counted towards the qualifying service even if such service is not preceded by temporary or regular appointment in a pensionable establishment.” 9. Careful perusal of aforesaid judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex Court clearly reveals that in case five years service is rendered on 5 daily wage basis, same shall be considered equal to one year regular service and in case daily wage employee has rendered regular service of more than eight years, same shall be considered as ten years. In the instant case, admittedly petitioner has rendered regular service of more than nine years and nine months, as has been fairly admitted by the respondents in their reply, as such, she is entitled for pension. 10. Though it has been claimed at the behest of respondents that service rendered as a whole time contingent paid is not equivalent to daily wage basis, but such plea also deserves rejection, being totally fallacious. Needless to say, a person while rendering services as whole time contingent paid is paid salary of daily wage basis, if it is so, she shall be also deemed to have worked on daily wage basis. In view of the above, petitioner herein on both the counts, on the basis of judgments passed by Hon’ble Apex Court, is entitled to be granted pension. 11. Moreover, Rule 44(7) of CCS (Pension) Rules, 2021, clearly provides that while calculating the length of qualifying service, fraction of a year equal to three months and above shall be treated as a complete six monthly period and reckoned as qualifying service, meaning thereby, that petitioner herein, who has qualifying service of more than nine years and nine months, shall be otherwise deemed to have served for ten years. Rules 44(7) & 44(8) of afore Rules, read as under: 6 “44(7). In calculating the length of qualifying service, fraction of a year equal to three months and above shall be treated as a completed six monthly period and reckoned as qualifying service. (8) In the case of a Government servant who has rendered a qualifying service of nine years and nine months or more but less than ten years, his qualifying service for the purpose of this rule shall be ten years and he shall be eligible for pension in accordance with sub-rule (1).” 12. Consequently, in view of the above, present petition is allowed and respondents are directed to grant pension to the petitioner on account of her having rendered more than ten years of qualifying service. Since petitioner has been fighting or her rightful claim for quite long, this Court hopes and trusts that needful shall be done expeditiously, preferably, within a period of two months. The present petition is disposed in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge June 20, 2025 (Rajeev Raturi)