Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Himachal Pradesh · body

2026 DAILYLAW 26055 (HP)

DAMYANTI DEVI v. THE STATE OF HP AND OTHERS

CWP/17453/2026 · 2026-10-06

Jyotsna Rewal Dua

Civil Appealbody2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 17453/2026 Decided on: 06.10.2026 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Damyanti Devi …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Tek Chand Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Ms. Menka Raj Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Petitioner’s case is that in view of law laid down in Sunder Singh Vs. State of H.P. and Ors2. and Balo Devi & others Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others.3 five years of daily-wage service is required to be computed as one year towards regular service for the purpose of qualifying service for determining eligibility for pension under the CCS Pension Rules, 1972. The petitioner, in the present case, has rendered 4 years and 8 months of daily-wage service. Learned counsel asserts that the equivalent fraction of such service is liable to be added to the 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 Civil Appeal No. 6309/2017 decided on 08.03.2018 3 Civil Appeal No.4792 of 2022, decided on 18.07.2022. 2 regular service rendered by the petitioner. If such service is so reckoned, the total regular service of the petitioner would be more than 8 years, thereby making the petitioner eligible for pension in terms of Sundar Singh2 and Balo Devi3. Since Sundar Singh2 and Balo Devi3 do not envisage counting of a fraction of service of less than five years rendered as daily-wage service, learned counsel for the petitioner, at this stage, seeks permission to withdraw the instant petition with liberty to file afresh, in accordance with law, at an appropriate stage, in case necessity so arises. 2. Granting liberty as prayed for, the instant petition is dismissed as withdrawn. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge 06th October, 2026 rohit