IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 15931/2026 Decided on: 14.09.2026 Raksha Devi …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. .…Respondents. ……………………………………………………………………………. Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioners: Mr. Anil Thakur, Advocates. For the respondents: Ms. Seema Sharma, Deputy Advocate General. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J Notice. Mr. Seema Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents. 2. The petitioner had to her credit 4 years & 3 months of daily-wage service as a sweeper, as well as 7 years, 9 months, and 14 days of service as a regular Class IV employee. Her representation seeking benefit of the Old Pension Scheme in light of Sunder Singh Vs The State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors.2., Balo Devi & others Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors.3 and Roshan Lal Vs. State of H.P.4 was rejected by respondent No. 2 on 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes 2 Civil Appeal No.6309 of 2017, decided on 08.03.2018 3 Civil Appeal No.4792 of 2022, decided on 18.07.2022 4 CWP No. 5407/2012 decided on 08.10.2012 2 03.06.2026. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has preferred this petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had continuously served the respondent as part-time worker for 12 years, 5 months, and 22 days, and that her services were required to be converted on daily-wage basis from a much earlier date than 12.06.2012 i.e. when petitioner was made a daily waged employee. Learned counsel invites attention to Kuldeep Singh vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others5, wherein conversion of part-time service for the purpose of determining eligibility to receive pension was considered, with following observations: - “8. As the petitioner, cannot be made to suffer for the acts of omission of the Department, this petition is disposed of by holding that the act of the respondents of not regularizing/ promoting the petitioner as a Class-IV employee in terms of the judgment of Hon’ble Division Bench is held to be bad in law. The petitioner is held entitled for regularization/promotion as a Class-IV employee upon completion of 10 years of service as a Part Time Water Carrier. It is further directed that the Department shall confer notional regularization/promotion upon the petitioner without any financial benefits etc. from the date he completes 10 years of service as a Part Time Water Carrier to make the petitioner eligible for pension. The respondents are directed to grant pension to the petitioner in accordance with law as from the date of his superannuation by treating him eligible for grant of pension from the said date. 5 CWP No. 9484 of 2024, decided on 10.03.2026 3 9. It is clarified that the period of service post regularization after 10 years of service, working as a Part Time Water Carrier, shall be taken into consideration only for the purpose of eligibility of the petitioner to receive pension and nothing more. In other words, the petitioner shall be granted pension by construing that he served for 10 years as a regular/promoted employee and nothing more. Respondents are also directed to release pension to the petitioner from the due date. Arrears be cleared within three months, failing which, the same shall entail interest @ 6% per annum from the date of judgment. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.” Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner inadvertently could not bring the decision rendered in Kuldeep Singh5 to the notice of the respondents while preferring the representation dated 20.04.2026, seeking pension under the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules 1972; The case of the petitioner for the grant of pension is otherwise covered by the decision in Kuldeep Singh5. 3. In view of the above, notwithstanding the decision taken by the respondent on 03.06.2026, the writ petition is disposed of with liberty reserved to the petitioner to prefer a fresh representation seeking applicability of the judgments in Sunder Singh2, Balo Devi3, Roshan Lal4 and Kuldeep Singh5. In case such representation is made within two weeks, the same shall be considered & decided afresh within six weeks thereafter, in accordance with law and in terms of above judgments. The decision so arrived at shall also be 4 communicated to the petitioner. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge 14th September, 2026(rohit)