2026:HHC:15356 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.3658 of 2026 Decided on :07.05.2026 ____________________________________________________________ Indri Devi ...Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others ...Respondents _____________________________________________________________ Coram Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the petitioner: Mr. Bonit Thakur, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Amandeep Sharma, Additional Advocate General, for respondents No.1 to 3. Mr. Tek Ram Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.4. Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge (Oral) The petitioner by way of present petition is seeking directions to the respondents to grant family pension to her w.e.f. 01.01.2018, on the ground that her husband was engaged on daily wage basis with the respondents-State in the year 1981, who was later on brought on regular/work charge establishment on 01.01.1994 and after rendering regular service of 7 years and 3 months, he was retired from service on 31.03.2001. 2. Earlier when the petitioner was not granted the 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2026:HHC:15356 pensionary benefits in lieu of services rendered by her husband, she had approached the erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal (for short ‘the Tribunal’) by way of OA No.1682 of 2018, for grant of pension in terms of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.6309 of 2017, titled, Sunder Singh vs. The State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors., and connected matters, and same was disposed of on 11.04.2018, directing the respondents to consider the case of her husband in terms of the decision passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sunder Singh’s case (supra), and in case, on verification, it is found that late husband of the petitioner is similarly situate, benefit of the said order shall also be extended to her along with consequential benefits within three months from the date of production of certified copy of the order. In sequel to the said directions given by the Tribunal, respondent No.2 had passed an office order on 19.01.2019, stating that husband of the petitioner was granted the work charge status on completion of 10 years of service and other benefits under the Mool Raj Upadhyaya’s judgment w.e.f. 01.01.1994 and all the consequential benefits i.e. gratuity and leave encashment. 3 2026:HHC:15356 However, it was observed that as per the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sunder Singh’s case (supra), daily wage service of five years will be treated as one year of regular service for pension, but if on that basis the services of an employee are more than 8 years, but less than 10 years, his services will be reckoned as ten years. But despite that the petitioner has not been granted the pension, though it has been noticed in the order that the regular service of the husband of the petitioner was 7 years and 3 months and daily wage services of 10 years, which will be treated as 2 years and thus, the total service reckoned comes to 9 years and 3 months. 3. The petitioner has claimed in the present petition that since the husband of the petitioner had completed more than 8 years’ service including the daily wage services, she was entitled to pension on the basis of the decision in Sunder Singh’s case (supra). 4. Respondents No.1 to 3 filed reply to the petition and averred that since husband of the petitioner had rendered total regular service of 7 years and 3 months and 10 years on daily wage basis, the total service rendered by her husband comes to 9 years and 3 months. Though in the 4 2026:HHC:15356 judgment of Sunder Singh’s case (supra), it has been held that if both the components take the total length of service more than 8 years, but less than 10 years, as per interpretation of para No.6 of Sunder Singh’s case (supra), the respondents had filed a review petition which has been dismissed on 04.03.2024. After the dismissal of the review petition, respondents-State have filed a Curative Petition vide diary No.43702 of 2025, which is still pending adjudication. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the case file carefully. 6. It is not in dispute that the husband of the petitioner had rendered 7 years and 3 months service on regular basis and further 10 years’ service on daily wage basis. As per the dictum passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sunder Singh’s case (supra), if an employee has rendered 6 years regular service and 10 years on daily wage basis, which is to be considered of 2 years’ service, thereby completing 8 years regular service, he is entitled to pension. The respondents have also not disputed this legal position, but only plea taken by them in the reply is that the curative petition has been filed, which is pending 5 2026:HHC:15356 adjudication. Once the respondents-State has implemented the judgment in Sunder Singh’s case (supra), and thereafter granted the similar benefits to other persons, the petitioner, who is a widow of late Sh. Chet Ram, cannot be denied the benefit only on the strength of the fact that a Curative Petition is pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The husband of the petitioner retired from service on 31.03.2001. It is very surprising that till date the pension has not been paid to the petitioner, though the judgment in Sunder Singh’s case (supra), was delivered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 08.03.2018, thereby directing the respondents to grant pension to all employees, if they have been duly regularized and have completed total eligible service, which was prescribed as 8 years including daily wage service of 10 years, which shall be reckoned as 10 years. 7. In the present case, as already noticed above, the husband of the petitioner had rendered 7 years and 3 months regular service and 2 years’ regular service on account of 10 years daily wage service, which period comes to 9 years and 3 months and thus, the petitioner is entitled to the pension as per the decision in Sunder Singh’s case 6 2026:HHC:15356 (supra). There is no justification to delay the pension to the petitioner and by now it is settled in a catena of judgments that the pension is not a bounty, but a vested right of an employee in view of the service rendered by him. 8. Consequently, the petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 19.01.2019 is quashed to the extent of not granting the family pension to the petitioner. The respondents are directed to release the family pension to the petitioner w.e.f. 01.01.2018. In case the entire arrears of pension w.e.f. 01.01.2018 are not released in favour of the petitioner within three months from today, the respondents shall pay interest @ 6% per annum, w.e.f. 01.01.2018 till actual payment. It is made clear that the interest component shall be recovered from the erring officers/ officials, if there is any delay in making the payment of arrears. However, there shall be no orders as to cost. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. 07 th May, 2026 ( Jiya Lal Bhardwaj ) (Anurag) Judge