2026:HHC:14248 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA LPA No.119 of 2026 Decided on : _29.04.2026 State of H.P. and others ... Appellants Versus Raju Ram and another …Respondents. Coram Hon’ble Mr. Gurmeet Singh Sandhawalia, Chief Justice. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the appellant : Mr. Rakesh Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General. For the respondents : G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice (Oral) The consideration is sought of the direction issued by the learned Single Judge in CWP No. 9708 of 2025 titled as Raju Ram vs. State of H.P. and others, decided on 19.06.2025. The learned Single Judge, while quashing the order dated 6th May, 2025 passed by the respondent- authority, directed respondent No. 2, being the competent authority, to consider the case of the petitioner for grant of pensionary benefits. The same was done keeping in view the law laid down in LPA No. 196 of 2022 titled as Roop Lal vs. State of H.P. and others, decided on 11.10.2023 (Annexure P-8), which has been not interferred in by the Apex Court in 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes -2- SLP No. 1007/2024 titled The State of H.P. and others vs. Roop Lal, decided on 18.3.2025 (Annexure P-9). 2. The learned Single Judge has noticed the rejection order passed by the authority during the execution proceedings, since consideration of the benefit of the earlier direction passed in CWP No. 1667 of 2012 titled as Raju Ram vs. State of H.P. and others had been sought, whereby a direction had been issued on 27.03.2012 to consider the employee for counting 50% of daily wage service for the purpose of pension. The learned Single Judge found that the rejection was on account of the service being only four years, four months, and twenty-six days till superannuation on 28.02.2011, and that the applicability of the judgments in Civil Appeal No. 6309 of 2017 titled as Sunder Singh vs. State of H.P. and others, decided on 08.03.2018, and in Civil Appeal No. 4792 of 2022 titled as Balo Devi vs. State of H.P. and others, decided on 18th July, 2022 was confined to Class- IV employees and not applicable to the petitioner, who is a Class-III employee. 3. Keeping in view the fact that the order of regularization dated 28th March, 2008 (Annexure P-1) was retrospective w.e.f. 01.01.2002 and that the superannuation was on 28th February, 2011, it was noticed that his regular -3- service would be nine years and two months, and therefore, the benefit in Roop Lal (supra) had to be granted, since it extended the same benefit of Sunder Singh and Balo Devi (supra) to Class-III employees regarding daily wage service. A perusal of the writ petition shows that the petitioner had been appointed as a daily wager way back in the year 1992, and therefore, the learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that for the period from 1992 till 01.01.2002, the benefit was to be granted along with the regular period of service of nine years and two months, which was short of ten years for qualifying service. 4. In such circumstances, consideration has been given in favour of the settled principle that the State is bound by the same, and, resultantly, consideration has been directed. In these circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the present appeal is wholly misconceived on the factual and legal matrix. Accordingly, the same is dismissed, so also the pending miscellaneous applications, if any. (G.S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice (Bipin Chander Negi) Judge 29th April, 2026 Tarun Singh -4-