( 2026:HHC:798 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. LPA No.03 of 2026 Decided on: 1st January, 2026 State of H.P and others .......Appellants versus Hirda Ram ...Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S.Sandhawalia, Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the appellants: Mr.Sidharth Jalta, Deputy Advocate General. G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice (Oral) The learned Single Judge has granted consideration for grant of pension in view of the decision rendered in LPA No.196 of 2022 titled Roop Lal vs. State of H.P and others, decided on 11.10.2023, denied to the writ- petitioner by the State by noting that the SLP(C) No.1007 of 2024 instituted by the State has also been dismissed on 18.03.2025, against the said judgment. 2. Counsel for the State has tried to submit that the benefits as such in Sunder Singh vs. State of Himachal 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. ( 2026:HHC:798 ) 2 Pradesh and others and Balo Devi and others vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others would not be applicable to Class-III employees. The judgment in Roop Lal’s case (supra) is also of retired Class-III employee, whereby counting of service rendered on daily wage basis before regularization/grant of work charge status was to be counted towards qualifying service for grant of pension. 3. Perusal of the writ petition which was filed by the employee would go on to show that it is the specific case of the employee that he had worked as a daily wage Blacksmith in the respondent Department in the year 1984 and his services were regularized in January, 1997 and he retired from service on 31st January, 2006 and the writ-petitioner had rendered more than 9 years of regular services, but was denied pension on the ground that he did not have the qualifying service of 10 years to his credit and, therefore, he had filed the writ petition, basing the judgment on Roop Lal’s case (supra). 4. In the reply filed by the State, there is an admission that the writ-petitioner was engaged as Blacksmith (Junior Technician) Class-III on daily wage basis w.e.f. the year 1986 and he had worked continuously with 240 days in ( 2026:HHC:798 ) 3 each calendar year. His services were regularized on 01.01.1996 and thereafter he stood retired from service on 31.01.2025, when he was paid all the retiral dues after having rendered 9 years and 1 month regular service, which is less than 9 years and 9 months regular service as prescribed under CCS Pension Rules, 1972. 5. The only distinction sought to be made in the reply was that Sunder Singh’s case (supra) is confined to the Class-IV employees, who were in continuous daily wage service prior to 31.12.1993, but the writ-petitioner was working as Blacksmith, which is a Class-III post, which is now apparently not tenable, in view of a Co-ordinate Bench judgment in Roop Lal’s case (supra), which has been upheld upto the Apex Court. The relevant part reads as under:- “19. The claim herein is with respect to counting of service as rendered on daily wage basis before Regularization/ grant of work charge status towards qualifying service for grant of pension. For the said adjudication what is relevant is the period rendered towards daily wage by the concerned employee irrespective of the status of the employee, Class-III/ Class IV. 20. The claim for pension is a recurring cause of action. The petitioner is an employee who belongs to a lower hierarchy in service. Delay in filing the present petition would dis-entitle the petitioner for grant of interest but he would definitely be entitled for monetary benefits prospectively. Further on account of delay in filing the present petition monetary benefits can be restricted to three years prior to the filing of the petition. In this respect it would be appropriate to refer to (2008) 8 Supreme Court Cases 648, titled as Union of India and ( 2026:HHC:798 ) 4 others vs. Tarsem Singh, wherein it has been held that non-grant of pension is a continuing wrong which in spite of delay may be granted as it does not effect the rights of third-parties. In so far as the consequential relief of recovery of arrears for past service is concerned, it has been held therein that principle relating to recurring/successive wrongs would apply. However, the consequential relief relating to arrears shall normally be restricted to a period of three years prior to the date of filing of the writ petition. 21. In view of the aforesaid proposition of law, we are of the considered view that the purpose of pension, the Constitutional mandate contained in Articles 14, 38, 39 of the Constitution of India and the doctrine of proportionate equality would be required to be read into the Rules as has been held by the Apex Court in Sunder Singh's case supra in order to give weightage of service rendered as daily wager towards regular service for the purpose of pension even to Class-III employees. 22. In view of the above discussion, respondent- State is directed to extend benefit of Daily Wage service to the petitioner, in terms of Sunder Singh's case, as explained in Balo Devi's case, for calculating qualifying service for the purpose of pension, and to extend all benefits of pension to the petitioner within one month from today. However, the petitioner shall be entitled for monetary benefits three years prior to the date of filing of the petition. Benefits accruing beyond three years prior to filling of the petition, if any, shall be only on notional basis. 22-A. With respect to the cut-off date from which actual monetary benefits are to be extended, keeping in view the law laid down by Supreme Court in Sunder Singh’s and Balo Devi’s cases, it is further clarified that the petitioner shall be entitled for actual monetary benefits w.e.f. 1.1.2018 and the monetary benefits, if any, prior to 1.1.2018 shall only be on notional basis, but if the three years period, prior to filing of the petition, is subsequent to 1.1.2018, then the actual benefits shall be granted from such subsequent date. 23. In view of what has said hereinabove, we allow this appeal and set aside the impugned judgment. The appeal is accordingly disposed of, so also, the pending application, if any.” ( 2026:HHC:798 ) 5 6. In such circumstances, the benefit as such of the daily wage period has to be granted by calculating his services for the grant of pension as Roop Lal (supra) stood finalized upto the Apex Court. 7. Resultantly, we do not find any plausible reason to interfere with the well reasoned order of the learned Single Judge directing consideration of the case of the writ- petitioner, in view of the settled principle of law. 8. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed, so also the pending applications, if any. ( G.S. Sandhawalia ) Chief Justice ( Jiya Lal Bhardwaj ) January 01, 2026 Judge (naveen)