Daily Wage Service Must Be Counted for Pension, Delay Not a Bar: HP High Court

Shimla: The Himachal Pradesh High Court has delivered a significant ruling in favor of a retired Class-IV employee, reinforcing that daily wage service must be counted towards calculating the qualifying period for pension. The court quashed a government order that had denied pensionary benefits to the petitioner, Jagat Ram, and directed the state to grant him pension within four weeks.

The judgment, delivered by Justice Sandeep Sharma, also dismissed the state's argument that the claim was barred by delay, holding that pension is a "recurring cause of action" and that a landmark Supreme Court judgment on the matter is a "judgment in rem," applicable to all similarly situated persons.

Background of the Case

The petitioner, Jagat Ram, was appointed as a daily wage Beldar in 1983. After serving for 11 years on a daily wage basis, his services were regularized on January 1, 1994. He subsequently rendered seven years of regular service before retiring on December 31, 2000.

His total regular service of seven years fell short of the ten-year minimum required for pension eligibility. However, a series of Supreme Court judgments, notably Sunder Singh vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Balo Devi vs. State of Himachal Pradesh , established a formula for counting daily wage service for Class-IV employees towards pension. Relying on these precedents, Jagat Ram submitted a representation for pension in April 2024, which was rejected by the authorities on September 18, 2024, leading him to file the current writ petition.

Arguments Presented

Petitioner's Counsel, Mr. Vineet Vashistha, argued: - The petitioner was entitled to the benefit of the Supreme Court's rulings in the Sunder Singh and Balo Devi cases. - As per the formula, five years of daily wage service should be treated as one year of regular service. - Since the petitioner had over 10 years of daily wage service, this would equate to two years of regular service. - Adding this to his seven years of regular service would bring his total qualifying service to nine years (7+2=9). - The Sunder Singh judgment further clarified that if an employee's total service is more than eight years but less than ten, it shall be reckoned as ten years for pension purposes. Therefore, the petitioner was eligible for pension.

State's Counsel, Advocate General Mr. Anup Rattan, argued: - The claim should be rejected on grounds of "delay and laches." - The Sunder Singh judgment was passed in 2018, but the petitioner only made his representation in 2024. - Citing the Supreme Court case of Chairman, State Bank of India vs. M.J. James , he contended that "fence sitters cannot be granted relief."

Court's Rationale and Precedents

Justice Sandeep Sharma firmly sided with the petitioner, relying heavily on the established legal principles from the Sunder Singh case.

"Since, it is not in dispute that prior to regularization petitioner rendered more than 10 years service on daily wage basis, afore service on daily wage is required to be treated as two years regular service, if it is so, regular service of the petitioner would be become more than 9 years((7+2=9 years))."

The court explicitly noted that since the Sunder Singh judgment provides for rounding up service of more than eight years to ten, the petitioner's claim was undeniable.

On the issue of delay, the court made a crucial distinction, stating:

"This Court cannot lose sight of the fact that petitioner is a Class-IV employee... [who] cannot be expected to know the very meaning of acquiescence and as such, plea of delay and laches sought to be rasied deserves to be rejected, especially when pension is recurring cause of action."

Furthermore, the court held that the Sunder Singh judgment was a judgment in rem —a decision that determines the status of a subject matter for all, not just the parties to the case. It noted that the government itself had issued a notification in 2019 to implement the judgment, yet had failed to do so, compelling employees to approach the courts.

Final Decision and Implications

Finding clear merit in the petition, the High Court allowed the plea. The impugned order of September 18, 2024, was quashed and set aside.

The court directed the respondents to grant pension to Jagat Ram by extending the benefit of the Sunder Singh and Balo Devi judgments. Highlighting the long struggle of the petitioner, the court ordered that the directions be complied with "expeditiously, preferably within four weeks." The matter has been listed for a compliance check on October 27, 2025. This decision reaffirms the pensionary rights of thousands of former daily wage employees and serves as a strong reminder to the state to proactively implement binding legal precedents.