IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.4254 of 2024 Decided on: 30th May, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Gian Chand …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and another .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Pawanish Kr. Shukla, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajat Choudhry, Assistant Advocate General. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge The case set up by the petitioner is that:- (i). He was initially engaged as Beldar w.e.f. 01.10.1993 to 30.11.1993 and as Hand Pump Mechanic (Class-III) w.e.f. 01.12.1993. (ii). His services were regularized as Hand Pump Mechanic w.e.f. 24.03.2007. Subsequently, he was granted work charge status w.e.f. 01.01.2002 as Class-III employee. (iii). Petitioner retired from government service on 31.10.2009. He had rendered 07 years and 10 months of regular/work charge service. Since his regular/work charge service period fell short of minimum ten years of service 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 required to get full pension under the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, the respondents did not release him pension. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance upon Roop Lal Versus State of H.P. & Others2, whereby benefit of law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sunder Singh Versus The State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors.3 and Balo Devi & others Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others4 was ordered to be extended to Class-III employees as well. Relevant portion from the aforesaid 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 2 LPA No.196 of 2022, decided on 11.10.2023 3 Civil Appeal No.6309 of 2017, decided on 08.03.2018 4 Civil Appeal No.4792 of 2022, decided on 18.07.2022 3 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.” Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that SLP(C) No.1007/2024 preferred by the State against the aforesaid decision has been dismissed by the Hon’ble Apex Court on 18.03.2025. 3. In view of the aforesaid decision in Roop Lal’s2 case and dismissal of respondents’ appeal against this decision, the present writ petition is disposed of by directing the respondents to consider and decide the case of the petitioner for grant of pension and pensionary benefits to him in accordance with law as well as in light of the aforesaid decision, within a period of six weeks from today. The decision so arrived at shall also be 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 May 30, 2025 Judge Mukesh