1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 782 of 2026 Decided on: 08.01.2026 Karam Chand …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P and others .....Respondents ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Ms. Meenakshi Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. L.N.Sharma, Additional Advocate General and Ms. Menka Raj Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents No. 1 to 5. Mr. Tek Ram Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.6. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Mr. L.N. Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, Mr. Tek Ram Sharma, learned counsel, appear and waive service of notice on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 5 and respondent No.6, respectively. 2. In view of the nature of impugned order, pleadings, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and the order being passed hereinafter, reply of writ petition is not required to be called from the respondents. Matter has accordingly been heard at this stage. 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 3. Consequent upon directions issued in Karam Chand versus State of H.P and others2 the respondents set out to consider the case of the petitioner for applicability of decisions rendered in Sunder Singh Vs. State of H.P. & Ors.3 and Balo Devi & others Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others4 to determine petitioner’s eligibility for grant of pension. Vide office order issued on 16.10.2025, the respondents rejected the case of the petitioner on the ground that minimum ten years qualifying service is mandatorily required for grant of pension under Rule 49 (2) of Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 whereas the petitioner had rendered regular service only for eight years and four months. This order has been impugned in the present petition. 4. The impugned order itself gives out factual position that petitioner had to his credit daily wage service w.e.f. 2006 to 2013 i.e. more than five years and regular service of eight years and four months. In case seven years of daily wage service rendered by the petitioner is considered as equivalent to one year of regular service as held in Balo Devi4 and is added to petitioner’s regular service, his total service would become nine years and four 2CWP No.10958/2025, decided on 09.07.2025. 3Civil Appeal No. 6309 of 2017, decided on 08.03.2018 4Civil Appeal No.4792 of 2022 decided on 18.07.2022 3 months i.e. more than eight years. The petitioner prima- facie appears to be entitled to pension in view of Sunder Singh3 and Balo Devi.4 Simply because respondents have preferred a curative petition before the Hon’ble Apex Court in Balo Devi,4 will not create any embargo in implementation of Balo Devi4 and Sunder Singh3 to the case of the petitioner. Respondents are under no authority to sit over the decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court and to deny their applicability to the petitioner only on the projected ground of filing of curative petition. Accordingly, the impugned office order dated 16.10.2025 is quashed and set-aside with cost of ₹10,000/-. The cost be deposited in "Chief Justice Disaster Relief Fund 2025". The case of the petitioner be now considered afresh by the respondents/Competent Authority in accordance with law, in consonance with Karam Chand2 and keeping in view the above decisions, within four weeks. Copy of order be also communicated to the petitioner. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua January 08, 2026 Judge yogesh