( 2026:HHC:22916 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 1662 of 2024 Decided on: 18.06.2026 Smt. Nirmala Devi ……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. Parveen Thakur, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, Additional Advocate General. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs:- “(a) That the respondent-Department may kindly be directed to count the services of 5 years as 1 year rendered by her late husband on daily wages basis before regularization/grant of work charge status towards qualifying service for grant of pension under CCS (Pension ) Rules, 1972 in terms of Annexure P- 1 Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. ( 2026:HHC:22916 ) (b) That the respondents may further be directed to grant the pensionary benefits from the date of retirement of late husband of the petitioner with arrears of pension w.e.f. 30.04.2006 and actual monetary benefits may be paid as per law laid down in Sunder Singh’s and Balo Devi’s cases and also as per ratio laid down by this Hon’ble High Court in LPA No. 196 of 2022.” 2. The case of the petitioner is that her husband late Shri Rattan Chand was engaged as a Beldar on daily wage basis in I & PH Division, Sundernagar, District Mandi, H.P. w.e.f. 21.01.1987 to 20.05.1987. Thereafter, his Muster Roll was changed to Pump Operator. The services of the husband of the petitioner were regularized vide letter dated 12.10.1999 (Annexure P-2) w.e.f. 01.01.1998. He superannuated from service on 30.04.2006 and as he had rendered only eight years and four months’ service in the I.P.H. Department, he was not given any pensionary benefits. The husband of the petitioner died on 16.06.2020. It is further the case of the petitioner that her late husband preferred an Original Application, i.e., O.A. (M) No. 30/2008 before the erstwhile learned Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal. Said Original Application was disposed of by the learned Tribunal in terms of judgment dated 04.06.2007 (Annexure P-4) by directing the respondents to take into 3. ( 2026:HHC:22916 ) account 50% of the daily wage service rendered by late husband of the petitioner while calculating his qualifying service for entitlement for pension. It is further the case of the petitioner that thereafter for one reason or the other, the matter was not decided at the Government level. It is further the case of the petitioner that in terms of judgment dated 08.03.2018 of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sunder Singh Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, Civil Appeal No. 6309 of 2017 as also judgment dated 18.07.2022 in Balo Devi Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, Civil Appeal No. 4792 of 2022, arising out of SLP (C) No. 18830 of 2021, wherein, direction has been issued to count five years of daily wage service as one year for the purpose of adding the same to the regular service rendered by an employee, to make him eligible for pension, the husband of the petitioner was also entitled for addition of two years of service, as he had rendered more than ten years of daily wage service. It is further the case of the petitioner that as her husband superannuated as a Class-III employee, this also entitled him for the benefit of the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in terms of judgment dated 11.10.2023, passed by this Court in LPA No. 196 of 2022, titled Roop Lal Vs. State of H.P. & others. 3. On the other hand, the stand of the respondent- Department is that the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court 4. ( 2026:HHC:22916 ) being relied upon by the petitioner, have no applicability to Class-III employees and as the husband of the petitioner had served as a Class-III employee, therefore, he was not entitled for pension. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that as it was not in dispute that the husband of the petitioner had put in more than ten years of daily wage service, which was followed by his regularization, the block of five years of daily wage service was to be treated as one year and then two years were required to be added to the actual service rendered by late husband of the petitioner, to calculate the qualifying service. He submitted that as late husband of the petitioner had actually put in eight years and four months of service on regular basis, the addition of two years of service took the qualifying service of husband of the petitioner beyond ten years, which renders him eligible for pension. He further submitted that the issue whether a Class-III employee is also entitled for the benefit of the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Balo Devi’s and Sunder Singh’s cases (supra) is no more res integra, as the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in LPA No. 196 of 2022, titled Roop Lal Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others, in terms of its judgment dated 11.10.2023 was pleased to hold that the benefit of Balo Devi’s and Sunder Singh’s cases (supra) was permissible to a 5. ( 2026:HHC:22916 ) Class-III employee and said judgment was upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. 5. On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General, by referring to the reply filed by the State, submitted that the pension was rightly declined to the husband of the petitioner, as he being a Class-III employee, was not entitled for the benefit of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sunder Singh’s case (supra). 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the pleading as well as the documents appended therewith carefully, this Court is of the considered view that there is merit in the contention of the petitioner. 7. It is not in dispute that as from the date of his regularization, late husband of the petitioner served the Department for eight years and four months. It is also not in dispute that before the services of late husband of the petitioner were regularized, he had served the Department for more than ten years. That being the case, a period of five years of daily wage service was to be treated as one year’s service and was required to be added to the actual regular service rendered by late husband of the petitioner, for calculating the qualifying period of service for pension. As the husband of the petitioner had served for more than ten years on daily 6. ( 2026:HHC:22916 ) wage basis, two years daily wage service was required to be added to the regular service, which took the qualifying service of husband of the petitioner beyond ten years. 8. The contention of the State that the benefit of Sunder Singh’s judgment was not permissible to late husband of the petitioner, as late husband of the petitioner served as a Class-III employee is also of no merit, as this issue has already been settled by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in LPA No. 196 of 2022, titled Roop Lal Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others, in terms of its judgment dated 11.10.2023, which could not be disputed even by the State during the course of hearing of this petition by this Court. 9. Accordingly, in the light of above discussion, the act of the Department of not giving the benefit of daily wage service rendered by the late husband of the petitioner in terms of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sunder Singh’s case (supra) is held to be bad in law. The respondent-State is directed to add two years of service to the actual service rendered by the late husband of the petitioner, on account of the daily wage service rendered by him to the Department. As by adding two years of daily wage service rendered by the late husband of the petitioner to the regular service rendered by him, the qualifying service comes to ten 7. ( 2026:HHC:22916 ) years and four months, which renders the late husband of the petitioner eligible for grant of pension, he is held entitled for pension. 10. As the petitioner has approached this Court in the year 2024 only, therefore, it is ordered that grant of pensionary benefits will only be notional and as husband of the petitioner is stated to have died on 16.06.2020, actual family pension, as is accruable to the petitioner, shall be paid to her w.e.f. 16.06.2020. Regular family pension be paid to the petitioner from the month of July, 2026 and arrears from 16.06.2020 to June 2026 be paid within a period of three months. With these observations, the petition stands disposed of, so also pending miscellaneous applications, if any. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge June 18, 2026 (bhupender)