IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.5320 of 2022 Decided on: 28th September, 2026 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mani Ram …..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: Ms. Seema Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents No.1 to 4. Mr. Tara Chand Chauhan, Advocate, for respondent No.5. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Even though the respondents have not filed reply to the writ petition that was instituted in the year 2022, however, taking note of the grievance of the petitioner and the facts that have been admitted by the respondents while rejecting the case of the petitioner for grant of pension under the impugned office order issued on 08.03.2019, the matter has been heard at this stage. 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 2. Pursuant to the directions issued by the erstwhile H.P. Administrative Tribunal on 12.07.2018 in O.A.(M) No.503 of 2018 (Mani Ram Versus State of H.P. and others), the respondents set down to consider the case of the petitioner for grant of pension. Vide office order dated 08.03.2019 (Annexure P-1), the respondents rejected the case of the petitioner, holding therein that the petitioner was engaged as Daily Wage Beldar in the respondent-H.P. Public Works Department during the year 1992; He was conferred regular/work charge status w.e.f. 01.01.2002; He superannuated on 31.10.2009. It is the respondents’ case in the impugned office order that petitioner’s total length of regular service was 07 years and if he is given the benefit of 02 years of daily wage service in consonance with Sunder Singh Versus The State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors.2 and Balo Devi & others Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others3, his total regular service would be 09 years. According to the respondents, since petitioner’s total regular service in this manner would still fall short from the requisite qualifying service of 10 years under the CCS 2 Civil Appeal No.6309 of 2017, decided on 08.03.2018 3 Civil Appeal No.4792 of 2022, decided on 18.07.2022 3 (Pension) Rules, 1972, therefore, he is not entitled for pension. 3. The reasons assigned in the impugned office order are not in consonance with Sunder Singh2 and Balo Devi3. Relevant portion from the decision rendered in Sunder Singh2 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 Devi3 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 others4. The benefit is applicable to all Class-IV as well as Class-III employees (Ref.: Roop Lal vs. State of H.P. & Ors.5) 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 08.03.2019 (Annexure P-1) 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 him 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 28, 2026 Judge Mukesh 4 1994 Suppl (2) SCC 316 5 LPA No.196/2022, decided on 11.10.2023