2026:HHC:8674 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No. 6768 of 2024 Decided on 24th March, 2026 Smt. Lachhi …Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others …Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge 1Whether approved for reporting? Yes For the petitioners: Mr. Uday Singh Banyal, 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:- I. “That the respondents may very kindly be directed to grant pension to the petitioner, widow of late Sh. Jagdish Chand, who was regular employee of respondents; first by holding/granting, pension to late Sh. Jagdish Chand and subsequently after the demise of Sh. Jagdish Chand, to the present petitioner; in the ends of justice. II. That the respondents may please be directed to pay arrears of pension to the petitioner from due date i.e., immediately after the superannuation of late Sh. Jadish Chand, i.e., 01.12.2006, onwards with interest at the rate of 7% till the filing of the present petition.” 2 2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that the husband of the petitioner joined the respondent-Department on daily wage basis w.e.f. 20.01.1986. He was regularized as a Work Inspector vide Annexure P-2, dated 27.09.1999 and he superannuated from the office of Assistant Engineer JSV, Sub-Division Salooni on 30.11.2006. 3. The contention of the petitioner is that in light of the fact that the petitioner before his regularization had put in 13 years of daily wage service, said service has to be taken into consideration for computing the eligibility of the late husband of the petitioner for pension as also that of the petitioner to be entitled for family pension. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that after the regularization of the late husband of the petitioner, he served for a period of 7 years, 1 month and 20 days upto his retirement. He further submitted that the late husband of the petitioner had put in 13 years of daily wage service, preceding the date of regularization, during which, the late husband of the petitioner had completed more than 240 days in each calendar 3 year. In terms of the law declared by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in Balo Devi versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others, Civil Appeal No.4792 of 2022, arising out of SLP(C) No.18830 of 2021, decided on 18.07.2022 and also in Sunder Singh versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others, in Civil Appeal No.6309 of 2017, decided on 08.03.2018, the 10 years of service rendered by the late husband of the petitioner was to culminate into 2 years of service to be added to the regular service of the late husband of the petitioner for the purpose of computing the total service rendered by the late husband of the petitioner for his entitlement for grant of pension. Learned counsel further argued that perusal of the reply filed by the State demonstrates that the reason why the State is denying the benefit of the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India to the present petitioner is that the deceased husband of the petitioner was a Class-III employee, ignoring the fact that even of computation of total service rendered by a Class-III employee is no longer res-integra and the same stands settled upto the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in terms of the judgment in LPA No.196 of 2022, titled 4 Roop Lal versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others, upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in terms whereof, even a Class-III employee is entitled for the counting of the daily wage service rendered by him to adjudge his eligibility for the grant of pension. Accordingly, learned counsel submitted that the act of the respondents of not treating the period spent by the petitioner’s husband on daily wage basis, in terms of the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, for computing the total length of service rendered by the late husband of the petitioner for his eligibility for pension is bad in law. Learned counsel prays that this petition be allowed and respondents be directed to take into consideration the 13 years daily wage service rendered by the late husband of the petitioner alongwith the regular service rendered by the late husband of the petitioner for the purpose of pension and to direct the Authority to grant family pension to the petitioner from due date. 5. On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General argued by relying upon the reply filed by the State that as the husband of the petitioner was serving as a Class-III 5 employee and superannuated as a Class-III employee, therefore, he cannot take the advantage of the judgments being relied upon him. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also carefully gone through the pleadings as well as documents on record. 7. It is not in dispute that in terms of the law declared by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Balo Devi’s case and Sunder Singh’s case (supra), 5 years block of daily wage service rendered by an incumbent with more than 240 days in each calendar year has to be treated as 1 year, which is to be added to the regular service rendered by an employee for the purpose of counting the employees eligibility for the receipt of pension. 8. In the present case, record demonstrates that for 10 years, preceding the date of his regularization, the husband of the petitioner had put in more than 240 days in each calendar year, meaning thereby that 2 years are to be added to the actual service rendered by the late husband of the petitioner on regular basis to determine his eligibility for grant of 6 pension. It is not in dispute that as on the date of his retirement, the late husband of the petitioner had put in 7 years, 1 month and 20 days of service, the addition of 2 years takes it to 9 years, 1 month and 20 days and in terms of the judgment in Balo Devi’s case (supra)of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, as 9 years, 1 month and 20 days is more than 8 years, the same has to be construed as 10 years for the purpose of grant of the pension. 9. Now, as far as the issue of the late husband of the petitioner not being entitled to the benefit of the said judgments on the ground that he was a Class-III employee is concerned, this issue is no more res-integra. In fact, this Court in CWP No.7051 of 2021, titled Ravinder Singh versus State of Himachal Pradesh and another, decided on 31.07.2024 has held that the benefit of the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Balo Devi’s case and Sunder Singh’s case has to be granted even to a Class-III employee in light of the law declared 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, decided on 11.10.2023, which judgment of 7 the Hon’ble Division Bench was upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. Therefore, as this issue is no more res-integra that the benefit of Balo Devi as well as Sunder Singh’s judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India is to be given to a Class-III employee also, the denial of the said benefit to the petitioner by the respondents is not sustainable in the eyes of law. 10. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. The act of the respondents of not taking into consideration the 13 years daily wage service rendered by the late husband of the petitioner before his regularization for the purpose of determining the eligibility of the late husband of the petitioner to receive pension is held to be bad in law. 11. It is directed that in the light of the fact that the late husband of the petitioner had put in more than 10 years of service preceding his regularization with more than 240 days in each calendar year, two years be added to the regular service rendered by the petitioner by treating a block of 5 years of daily wage service as 1 year. It is further ordered that as by adding 2 years to the regular service of the late husband of the 8 petitioner, the total service rendered by the late husband of the petitioner exceeds 8 years, then, in terms of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Balo Devi’s case, the 8 years’ service is to be construed as 10 years’ service and family pension be paid to the petitioner from the due date in terms of the prayer made in the writ petition. 12. In light of the fact that the late husband of the petitioner did not approach the Court after his retirement till the year 2018, when he died, no relief is being granted by this Court qua the entitlement of the late husband of the petitioner to receive pension and the relief is being confined to the grant of family pension to the petitioner as from the date of the death of the late husband of the petitioner. 13. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge March 24, 2026 (Vinod)