The central legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement to pension for employees with more than 10 years of total eligible service, including daily wage service, and the incorrect restriction of the judgment's application to only those regularized in pursuance to a specific case.

JUDGMENT

Satyen Vaidya, J. - Common questions of facts and law are involved in CWP Nos. 2956 of 2019 titled Uttam Sain Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others and 2970 of 2019 titled Raji Nand Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others, therefore, both these petitions are being disposed of by a common judgment.

2. The facts of the case in CWP2956 of 2019 are being taken into consideration first.

3. In 1995 petitioner was engaged as Beldar on daily wages with respondent No.4. His services were regularized in 2006 and he retired as Mate on 30.09.2011.

4. On 28.7.2010, this Court passed judgment in CWP No. 2735 of 2010 titled Rakesh Kumar Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others.

5. Respondent No.1 issued directions dated 14.2.2019 to implement judgment in Rakesh Kumar's case. Accordingly respondent No.4 ordered the regularization of the petitioner w.e.f 1.1.2003 vide order dated 13.10.2015.

6. On 8.3.2018, the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed judgment in Civil Appeal No. 6309 of 2017 titled Sunder Singh Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others, inter alia holding as under:

"6. Accordingly, we direct that w.e.f. 01.01.2018, the appellants or other similarly placed class-IV employees will be entitled to pension if they have been duly regularized and have completed total eligible service for more than 10 years. Daily wage service of 5 years will be treated equal to one year of regular service for pension. If on that basis, their services are more than 8 years but less than 10 years, their service will be reckoned as ten years."

7. Additional Chief Secretary (Finance) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh vide letter dated 14.2.2019 directed all the administrative departments to implement judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sunder Singh's case.

8. Petitioner had completed regular service of 8 years 7 months only with additional 8 years of daily wage service to his credit and had become entitled to the benefit of ratio laid down in Sunder Singh's case. Petitioner, however, was not granted his due.

9. Aggrieved against the inaction of respondents in not granting him the benefit of the judgment passed in Sunder Singh's case as well as office letter dated 14.02.2019, petitioner preferred Original Application No. 1218 of 2019 before the erstwhile H.P. State Administrative Tribunal. The said Original Application was disposed of on 5.4.2019 with direction to respondent-departments to consider the case of petitioner for extending him the benefit of judgment in Sunder Singh's case.

10. Respondent No. 4 passed order dated 23.08.2019, Annexure P-7, rejecting the claim of the petitioner on the ground that the benefit of said judgment could be allowed only to those daily wage Class-IV employees, who were regularized in pursuance to the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case ofMool Raj Uppadhya Vs. State of H.P & Others, (1994) Supp2 SCC 316.

11. As far as the facts in the case of CWP 2970 of 2019 titled Raji Nand Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others are concerned, those are similar to the facts in CWP 2956 of 2019 except that the petitioner in CWP 2970 of 2019 retired from service on 31.10.2011 and his Original Application before the erstwhile H.P. State Administrative Tribunal was numbered as OA No. 1215/2019.

12. Aggrieved against the orders dated 23.08.2019. Annexure P-7, issued by respondent No. 4, the petitioners have preferred the instant petitions seeking following substantive reliefs: -

"i) Issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the impugned order dated 23.08.2019 (Annexure P-7) for all intents and purposes.

(ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ order or direction, directing the respondents department to count 1 year and 7 months of daily wage service in 8 years 10 months as regular service. i.e. total 10 years and 5 months for the purpose of qualifying service for pension in terms of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sunder Singh C