( 2026:HHC:8821 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CMP(M) No. 143 of 2026 and LPA No.160 of 2026. Date of Decision : 23 rd March, 2026. State of H.P. & Ors. ....Applicants/Appellants. Versus Ms. Veena Devi ....Non-applicant/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? For the Applicants/Appellants: Mr. Varun Chandel, Addl. A.G. For the Non-Applicant/Respondent: Mr. H.S. Rangra, Advocate. G.S. Sandhawalia , Chief Justice (Oral) CMP(M) No. 143 of 2026. In view of the averments made in the application, which is duly supported by an affidavit, delay of 171 days in filing the appeal is condoned. The application stands disposed of. LPA No. 160 of 2026. 2. The State has laid challenge to the innocuous order passed by the learned Single Judge, dated 19.05.2025, whereby the State had been directed to consider the case of petitioner’s husband for counting daily wage service rendered by him towards pension in light of the decisions in Sunder Singh vs. The State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors., 2 ( 2026:HHC:8821 ) Civil Appeal No. 6309 of 2017, decided on 08.03.2018, Balo Devi & others vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & others, Civil Appeal No. 4792 of 2022, decided on 18.07.2022 and Roop Lal vs. State of H.P. & Ors., LPA No. 196 of 2022, decided on 11.10.2023. 3. The writ petitioner’s husband was working as Mason, a Class-III employee and he was engaged on daily wage basis in the respondent-department in the year 1975, and served as such till 31.12.1997. His services were regularized by the respondents as Mason on 01.01.1998. Petitioner’s husband had retired from service on 31.07.2007 after rendering 9 years and 7 months of regular service and thus he fell short of qualifying service for the purpose of pensionary benefits under the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972. Therefore, neither the pension nor the family pension was released to the petitioner’s husband. Hence, directions had been issued to decide and consider the case of the petitioner’s husband in light of the law laid down in LPA No. 196 of 2022, Roop Lal VS. State of H.P. & Ors., decided on 11.10.2023 and upheld in Special Leave to Appeal © No. 1007 of 2024, titled as The State of H.P. & Ors. vs. Roop Lal, which was dismissed on 18.03.2025, even prior to the orders passed by the learned Single Judge. 3 ( 2026:HHC:8821 ) 4. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the matter having attained finality, the filing of instant appeal is misconceived. In similar circumstances, we have also dismissed CMP(M) No. 129 of 2026 in LPA No. 105 of 2026, titled State of H.P. vs. Niram Chand, on 05.03.2026. As such, the Letters Patent Appeal filed by the State is dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (G.S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice. (Jiya Lal Bhardwaj) Judge 23rd March, 2026. (jai)