IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 16892/2026 Decided on: 29.09.2026 Roshan Lal …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. .…Respondents. ……………………………………………………………………………. Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner: Mr. P.K. Verma, Advocate. For the respondents: Ms. Seema Sharma, Deputy Advocate General. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J Ms. Seema Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. 2. In view of the grievance of the petitioner against order dated 11.11.2021 passed by respondent No. 2, rejecting his claim for grant of pension, and the factual position of the case, as outlined in the impugned order itself, there is no necessity to call for reply from the respondents. The matter has, accordingly, been heard at this stage. 3. Pursuant to the directions issued by the erstwhile H.P. Administrative Tribunal in Roshan Lal and others versus State of H.P.2, the respondents proceeded to consider the case of the petitioner for grant of pension. Vide order dated 11.11.2021, petitioner’s case was rejected holding therein that he has to his credit regular service w.e.f. 01.01.1994 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes 2 OA No. 4390/2018 decided on 31.07.2018 2 to 31.03.2000, i.e. 6 years, 3 months and 2 weeks and has also rendered more than 10 years of continuous daily-wage service, entitling him to the benefit of two more years of service in terms of the law laid down in Sunder Singh Vs. State of H.P. and Ors3 and Balo Devi & others Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others.4 Respondent No. 3 held in the impugned order that even if the petitioner is given the benefit of two years of daily-wage service in consonance with Sunder Singh3 and Balo Devi4, his total qualifying service would be 8 years and 3 months. According to the respondents, since petitioner’s total regular service, after extending the aforesaid benefit, falls short of the requisite qualifying service of 10 years under the CCS Pension Rules, 1972, he is not entitled to the grant of pension. 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 Singh 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.” 3 Civil Appeal No. 6309/2017 decided on 08.03.2018 4 Civil Appeal No.4792 of 2022, decided on 18.07.2022. 3 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 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. & Ors6.) 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 11.11.2021 (Annexure P-2) 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 5 1994 Suppl (2) SCC 316 6 LPA No.196/2022, decided on 11.10.2023 4 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 Judge 29th September, 2026(rohit)