IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.17144 of 2026 Decided on: 29th September, 2026 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shilavati …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Bonit Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. L.N. Sharma, Additional Advocate General, for respondents No.1 to 3. Mr. Rangil Singh, Advocate, for respondent No.4. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Mr. L.N. Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General and Mr. Rangil Singh, learned counsel, appear and waive service of notice on behalf of respondents No.1 to 3 and respondent No.4, respectively. In view of the grievance of the petitioner, the order passed by the respondents on 07.07.2026 and the facts noticed in the aforesaid order, there is no necessity to 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 call for reply from the respondents. The matter has accordingly been heard at this stage. 2. Petitioner seeks direction to the respondents to grant her pension from the due date with all incidental benefits. Pursuant to directions issued in Shilavati Versus State of H.P. and others2, the respondents set down to consider the case of the petitioner for grant of pension. Office order in this regard was passed on 07.07.2026 (Annexure P-3) by respondent No.2. In the aforesaid office order, it has been acknowledged that petitioner has to her credit regular service of 08 years, 05 months and 14 days as also daily wage service of more than five years. The order also acknowledges that in view of ratio of law laid down in Sunder Singh Versus The State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors.3 and Balo Devi & others Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others4, petitioner is entitled for one additional year of service by taking the block of five years of daily wage service rendered by her. In this manner, petitioner’s regular service has been computed as 09 years, 05 months and 14 days, however, she has not been held entitled to pension on the ground that her total regular 2 CWP No.2157 of 2026, decided on 02.03.2026 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 service would still fall short of the requisite qualifying service of 10 years under the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. 3. The reasons assigned in the impugned office order are not in consonance with Sunder Singh3 and Balo Devi4. Relevant portion from the decision rendered in Sunder Singh3 reads as under:- “6. Accordingly, we direct that w.e.f 01.01.2018, the appellants or other similarly placed Class-IV employees will be entitled to pension if they have been duly regularized and have been completed total eligible service for more than 10 years. Daily wage service of 5 years will be treated equal to one year of regular service for pension. If on that basis, their services are more than 8 years but less than 10 years, their service will be reckoned as ten years.” The above decision has further been clarified in Balo Devi4 as under:- “The intent of this Court was quite clear that:- (a) The services rendered as a regular employee may first be computed. (b) To the service as rendered to above, the component at the rate of one year of regular service for every five years of service as a daily wager, be added. (c) If both the components as detailed in Paras a & b hereinabove, take the length of service to a level of more than eight years but less than ten years, in terms of last sentence of paragraph 6 of the Order, the services shall be reckoned as ten years.” The benefit of the above decisions has not been restricted to those employees whose services were regularized in terms of the decision in Mool Raj 4 Upadhyaya versus State of H.P. and others5. The benefit is applicable to all Class-IV as well as Class-III employees (Ref.: Roop Lal vs. State of H.P. & Ors.6) for counting the daily wage service rendered by them for the purpose of qualifying services for grant of pension. 4. Hence, the impugned office order dated 07.07.2026 (Annexure P-3) is quashed and set aside. Petitioner is held entitled to pension under the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. Accordingly, there shall be a direction to respondent No.2/competent authority to process the case of the petitioner for grant of pension to her from the due date within a period of six weeks from today. The admissible arrears as also recurring pension shall be released in petitioner’s favour within the aforesaid period. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua September 29, 2026 Judge Mukesh 5 1994 Suppl (2) SCC 316 6 LPA No.196/2022, decided on 11.10.2023