JUDGMENT :

1. The case of the petitioner is that, her late husband was regularized as a work charge Beldar, w.e.f. 01.01.2000. He retired from service on 28.02.2006. The total service rendered by her late husband was, 6 years, 2 months. On retirement, he was deprived of his pension, on the ground that he did not possess the qualifying service of 10 years to his credit. Thereafter, the husband of the petitioner died in the year 2010.

2. The petitioner filed O.A. (D) No. 170 of 2018 before the H.P. Administrative Tribunal. By the order dated 20.06.2018, the same was disposed off, with a direction to the respondents-State to consider the case of the applicant, in view of the principles laid down in the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 6309 of 2017, titled Sunder Singh vs. State of H.P. and Others, decided on 8.3.2018. The respondents-State in terms of its office order dated 13.05.2019, came to the conclusion that the case of the applicant is not similar to Sunder Singh’s case and hence, rejected the plea. Aggrieved by the same, the instant petition is filed.

3. Shri A.K. Gupta, the learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sunder Singh. He further submits that by the order dated 25.06.2021 passed by the learned Division Bench of this Court in CWP No. 3396 of 2021, the principles as enunciated in Sunder Singh’s case were applied and relief was granted to the writ petitioners therein. Further, reliance is also placed on yet another Division Bench judgment of this Court dated 24.06.2019 passed in Ex. Pet. No. 117 of 2018 in CWP No. 267 of 2015, where a similar view was taken. Hence, he pleads that the petition be allowed.

4. Para 6 of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sunder Singh’s case, which was applied in the two judgments referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner, is extracted as follows:

“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 been 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.”

5. The learned Division Bench of this Court in CWP No. 3396 of 2021 held in Para-10 as follows:

“10. In the case at hand admittedly the petitioner before his regularization served the department as a daily wager for 10 years, meaning thereby benefit of two years of regular service is required to be given to him while determining his total service for the purpose of pension. In the case at hand, it clearly emerge from the order dated 23.9.2020 (Annexure P-5) passed by respondent No. 3 that the petitioner served the department as a regular employee for more than Six years 9 months and in case benefit of two years in terms of judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court is given to the petitioner, his total service comes out to be 8 years 9 months. Hon’ble Apex Court in the aforesaid judgment has clearly held that if after giving benefit of service rendered on daily wage basis, services of the petitioner becomes more than eight years and less than 10 years, his/their service shall be reckoned as 10 years and as such, there is force in the claim of the petitioner that his old service is required to be considered as 10 years in terms of judgment rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in Sunder Singh case (supra).”

6. The learned Division Bench therein came to the conclusion that in the facts and circumstances involved therein, the writ petitioner had put in a service of 6 years, 9 months. Two years benefit of regular service is required to be given to him, since he had put in service as a daily wager for more than 10 years. Therefore, in terms of the judgment in Sunder Singh’s case, 2 years is req