2026:HHC:17349 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CMP(M) No. 642 of 2026 & LPA No. 292 of 2026 Date of decision: 14.05.2026 State of H.P. & Ors. …Appellants Versus Sukh Dass …Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice G. S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin C. Negi, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Appellants: Mr. Rakesh Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General. G. S. Sandhawalia , Chief Justice (Oral) CMP(M) No. 642 of 2026 Keeping in view the averments made in the application, which is duly supported by the affidavit of the Director, Food, Civil Supplies & Consumer Affairs, the delay of 97 days in filing the appeal is condoned. Application stands disposed of. Appeal be registered. LPA No. 292 of 2026 2. Consideration in the present appeal is sought to the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP No. 7325 of 2025, titled as Sukh Dass vs. State of H.P. & Ors., decided on 11.11.2025, whereby the learned Single Judge while allowing the writ petition has quashed and set aside the order 2 2026:HHC:17349 dated 27.03.2025 (Annexure P-12) by directing the respondents to consider the regular service of 9 years and 4 months rendered by the petitioner, prior to superannuation, as 10 years for the purpose of pension in terms of Rule 49 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. 3. The said relief has been granted on the basis of the judgments of the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 6309 of 2017, titled as Sunder Singh vs. State of H.P. & Ors. decided on 08.03.2018 and Civil Appeal No. 4792 of 2022, titled as Balo Devi vs. State of H.P. & Ors., decided on 18.07.2022. The reasoning which weighed with the learned Single Judge reads as under:- “5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record, this Court finds that there is no dispute that prior to petitioner’s regularization on 06.04.2017, petitioner herein had rendered daily wage services w.e.f. 20.08.2006 till his regularization, i.e., more than 10 years. After his being regularized on 06.04.2017, petitioner superannuated on 30.09.2024, i.e., 7 years 4 months. Needless to say as per judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 4792 of 2022 titled Balo Devi vs. State of H.P. and others, daily wage service of 5 years will be treated equal to 1 year regular service for the purpose of pension, and if on that basis, service of the incumbent becomes more than 8 years, but less than 10 years, same shall be reckoned as 10 years. If it is so, 10 years daily wage service rendered by petitioner 3 2026:HHC:17349 prior to his regularization, is required to be treated as 2 years regular service. If aforesaid 2 year regular service is added to regular service of 7 years and 4 months, rendered by the petitioner, total qualifying service of petitioner comes out to be 9 years 4 months. As has been noticed above, Hon’ble Apex Court in Sunder Singh vs. State of H.P. and others and Balo Devi vs. State of H.P. and others, has categorically held that if total service of the incumbent comes out to be more than 8 years, but less than 10 years, same shall be reckoned as 10 years. However, interestingly Director Food, Civil Supplies & Consumer Affairs, Shimla, H.P., while passing impugned order dated 27.03.2025, failed to take note of aforesaid judgments rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court.” 4. It is not disputed that initially the petitioner was engaged as part time on 21.08.1996; thereafter his services were converted to daily wage on 20.08.2006; the benefit of regularization was given on 06.04.2017 and he was superannuated on 30.09.2024. The regular service as such of 7 years and 5 months and the daily wager period was 10 years 7 months, which would be clear from the table produced in para - 11 of the writ petition filed by the petitioner. 5. In such circumstances, the benefit as such has been given, in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court whereby an additional benefit of 2 years service has to be added to the regular service of 7 years 5 months on account of having 4 2026:HHC:17349 rendered over 10 years of daily wage service, which would have taken his service as such to 9 years 5 months and in view of the observations made in the Balo Devi’s case supra, wherein it was held that if length of service was more than eight years but less than ten years, the services shall be reckoned as ten years. The relevant portion reads as under:- “ We find it difficult to accept the submission of Mr. Patwalia. If the submission is accepted, the last line of paragraph 6 would lose any significance or meaning. The intent of this Court was quite clear that:- (a) the services rendered as a regular employee may first be computed. (b) To the service as rendered to above, the component at the rate of one year of regular service of every five years of service as a daily wager, be added.” (c) If both the components as detailed in Paras a & b hereinabove, take the length of service to a level of more than eight years but less than ten years, in terms of last sentence of paragraph of 6 of the Order, the services shall be reckoned as ten years. In the circumstances, we accept the contention raised by Mr. M. C. Dhingra, and set aside the order dated 13.05.2019 rejecting the claim made by the appellant. Allowing the writ petition preferred by the appellant, it is declare that the husband of the appellant and after the death, the appellant would be entitled to pension as claimed. All the arrears in that behalf shall be made over to the appellant within eight weeks from today. 5 2026:HHC:17349 With these observation the appeal is allowed. No costs.” 6. Resultantly, we do not find that the learned Single Judge has faulted in any manner, while granting the said relief. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed, so also pending applications, if any. (G. S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice (Bipin C. Negi) 14th May, 2026 Judge (sanjeev)