IMPORTANT POINT
Entitlement to family pension based on the requirement of regular service and the application of proportional equality in granting pension benefits.

JUDGMENT :

Ranjan Sharma, J.

Notice. Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of respondents No.1 to 4. Mr. Rangil Singh, Advocate, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of respondent No.5.

2. With the consent of the parties, the instant writ petition, is taken up for disposal, at this stage, in view of the order(s) intended to be passed herein.

3. The petitioner has filed the instant writ petition, with the following prayers:-

i) “That respondents may kindly be directed to grant the family pension to the petitioner after the retirement of her husband and on counting his daily wage tenure as per the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court passed in Civil Appeal No.6309/2017 as well as Judgment passed in Balo Devi Civil Appeal No.4792 of 2022, from the due date.

ii) That the respondents be also directed to release the pension along with other benefits including the arrears w.e.f. 1-1-2018, along with interest.”

4. The case set up by Mr. H.S. Rangra, learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner’s husband, namely, Shri Sher Singh served initially as daily wage Beldar and then as complaint attendant from 1982 till his regularization w.e.f. 01.01.1994. Thereafter, the petitioner’s husband retired on attaining the age of superannuation, after rendering actual regular service of eight years and five months of regular service on 31.05.2002, as a Class-III employee.

5. In Para 4 of the writ petition, it is stated that the husband of the petitioner, namely, Shri Sher Singh, expired on 17.09.2003 and after his death the present petitioner being the widow is entitled to be considered for grant of family pension w.e.f. 01.01.2018, in terms of the judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.6309 of 2017, titled as Sunder Singh versus State of Himachal Pradesh and ors., decided on 08.03.2018, which stands clarified by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.4792 of 2022, titled as Balo Devi versus State of Himachal Pradesh & ors., reported in latest HLJ 2022 (HP) (2) (817); after by taking into account the regular service of two years [in lieu of ten years of daily waged service] and actual regular service of eight years and five months. In this background, it is stated that the petitioner’s husband has rendered ten years and five months of regular service vis-à-vis the requirement of minimum eight years of regular service so as to qualify for pension/family pension w.e.f. 01.01.2018 in terms of the mandate of law in case of Sunder Singh & Balo Devi (supra). Once deceased husband of the petitioner is eligible and entitled to pension w.e.f. 01.01.2018, therefore, the petitioner, being the widow is entitled for family pension w.e.f. 01.01.2018 with all benefits.

6. By fulfilling the mandate of law, laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases of Sunder Singh & Balo Devi (supra), this Court had decided a similar issue in LPA No.196 of 2022, titled as Roop Lal versus State of Himachal Pradesh & ors., decided on 11.10.2023, whereby, it has been mandated as under:-

“18. When it comes to granting the benefit of counting service rendered on daily wage for the purpose of pension to class III employees there is no significant respect in which persons concerned are distinguishable from Class IV employees. As has already been stated supra in the case of Class IV employees Articles 14,38,39 and the Concept of “proportional equality” (egalitarian equality) have been read into the relevant pension rules and only thereafter a benefit of counting service rendered on daily wage for the purpose of pension has been accorded to the Class IV employees. Non grant / non extension of benefit of counting service rendered on daily wage for the purpose of pension to Class III employees by not reading Articles 14, 38, 39, the Concept of “proportional equality” (egalitarian equality) into the relevant pension rules would lead to a differential treatment to persons who are in no manne