2026:HHC:22944 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 1903 of 2024 Decided on: 18.06.2026 Smt. Aruna Kumari …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others … Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes _____________________________________________________ For the petitioner : Mr. Devender K. Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. R.P. Singh, Deputy Advocate General for respondents No. 1 to 3. : Mr. Rangil Singh, Advocate for respondent No. 4. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is restricting her reliefs only with regard to counting of the contract service rendered by her late husband as Patwari alongwith regular service to be treated as qualifying service for the purpose of pension. His statement is taken on record. 2. Facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that the husband of the petitioner was appointed as a Patwari on contract basis on 09.06.2011 by following the procedure prescribed in the Recruitment and Promotion Rules for the said post. The contract services rendered by the husband of the petitioner culminated into his regularization on 03.10.2016. Unfortunately, the 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2026:HHC:22944 husband of the petitioner died on 15.03.2022. Thereafter, the petitioner applied for the grant of family pension and PPO number was issued to her. The petitioner approached the Authorities for enhanced family pension and said request of the petitioner was also forwarded to the office of the Principal Accountant General at Shimla on 28.04.2023. It is the case of the petitioner that in terms of Annexure P-4, a Notification was issued by the State Government on 04.05.2023, in terms whereof, the old pension scheme was revived and option was given to the government officers and officials to opt for old pension. In terms of the notification, the scheme also covered employees who had retired or died in harness in between 15.05.2003 to 31.03.2023. According to the petitioner, she approached the competent Authority to exercise her right/option in terms of the notification, because the notification gave the right to the family members of the deceased employees to exercise their option, but the request of the petitioner was declined on the ground that total regular service rendered by her late husband was less than 10 years. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court to the judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in SLP (C) No. 10399 of 2020, titled as State of H.P. and another vs. Sheela Devi, decided on 07.08.2023 and submitted that in terms of said judgment, the contract service rendered by an employee was to be counted for the purpose of pension alongwith 3 2026:HHC:22944 regular service and in the present case, as the contract service rendered by the late husband of the petitioner, when combined with the regular service rendered by him, took the qualifying service above 10 years, the petitioner indeed is entitled for the grant of pension and denial thereof to the petitioner is not sustainable in law. 4. On the other hand, learned Deputy Advocate General has argued that in light of the fact that late husband of the petitioner after his regularization had not put in 10 years of service and in order to be eligible for the grant of pension, minimum 10 years of service is required, therefore, denial thereof to the petitioner cannot be faulted with. He submitted that right of pension only accrues once an employee put in 10 years of regular service and as in the present case, late husband of the petitioner was falling short of requisite number of years post regularization, therefore, the Department rightly denied the petitioner the right to exercise the option under the Old Pension Scheme. 5. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and also carefully gone through the pleadings as well as documents appended therewith. 6. In terms of the averments made in the writ petition, the late husband of the petitioner was appointed as a Patwari, on contract basis, on 09.06.2011 by following the procedure prescribed in the Recruitment and Promotion Rules. In terms of the reply filed 4 2026:HHC:22944 to the petition, there is no rebuttal to these averments made in the writ petition and in fact, the averments made in para-3 of the writ petition are admitted by the respondents. This demonstrates that though the initial appointment of the husband of the petitioner was termed as a contract appointment but the said appointment was by following the procedure prescribed in the Recruitment and Promotion Rules. 7. Be that as it may, it is also a matter of record that late husband of the petitioner continuously served the Department on contract basis till 03.10.2016, when his services were regularized. It is also not in dispute that late husband of the petitioner died in harness on 15.03.2022. In terms of the judgment dated 07.08.2023, of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, passed in SLP (C) No. 10399 of 2020, titled as State of H.P. and another vs. Sheela Devi, the contract service rendered by an employee, followed by regularization shall be counted for the purpose of annual increments and pensionary benefits. 8. In the present case, the petitioner stands denied the right to opt for Old Pension Scheme on the ground that late husband of the petitioner had not put in minimum 10 years of service so as to entitle him for the grant of pension. 9. As the late husband of the petitioner had served the Department w.e.f. 09.06.2011 up to 03.10.2016 on contract basis 5 2026:HHC:22944 and thereafter, on regular basis till his death on 15.03.2022, therefore, as from 09.06.2011 till the date of his death, as the late husband of the petitioner had rendered more than 10 years of service, both contract service as well as regular service combined continuously, without any break, the late husband of the petitioner was indeed entitled for the grant of pension. The contract service rendered by him could not have been ignored for the purpose of counting the same as qualifying service for the grant of pension. Once the contract along with regular service rendered by late husband of the petitioner took the qualifying service beyond ten years, the petitioner was entitled to exercise the option as per the Notification dated 04.05.2023. Respondent-Department has failed to appreciate this extremely important aspect of the matter by taking the stand that the petitioner was not eligible to exercise the option for Old Pension Scheme. The denial thereof to the petitioner to exercise the right to opt for old pension scheme is bad in law and is held as such. 10. Accordingly, in light of the above discussion, this petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to treat the contract service rendered by late husband of the petitioner alongwith regular service up to his death as qualifying service for pension and as the late husband of the petitioner had put in more than 10 years of service as such, the petitioner is entitled to receive pension. 6 2026:HHC:22944 Respondents are directed to give a further opportunity to the petitioner to exercise option within two weeks from today and in case, the petitioner opts under Old Pension Scheme, then consequences to ensue. With these observations, the petition stands disposed of. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge June 18, 2026 (narender)