IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the eligibility and entitlement to pension under the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, based on the petitioner's service history, including regular and deemed service, and the application of key judgments such as Sunder Singh, Baldev, and Balo Devi.

JUDGMENT :

Ranjan Sharma, J.

Notice. Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General and Mr. Tek Ram Sharma, Advocate, appear and waive service of notice on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 3 and respondent No.4.

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

3. The petitioner, being the widow has claimed for husband and then, the resultant family pension for herself, has filed the instant writ petition, for the following relief(s):-

“That the respondent may be ordered to pay pension and other retiral benefits to the petitioner w.e.f 1.1.2018 with all benefits incidental thereof.”

4. Mr. A.K. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner has set up a case that the petitioner was initially engaged on daily wage basis in the year 1988 but based on continuous service from 1991 his services were brought on work charge establishment/regularization on completion of 10 years service and the petitioner retired from service at the age of 58 years on 30.06.2006, after rendering more than five years and five months of regular service.

In the above background, Mr. Ashwani Gupta, learned counsel submits that the pension is eligible and entitled to pension w.e.f. 1.1.2018, in view of nine years and six months of regular service combined with-regular deemed service; based on five years and six months of actual regular service [i.e. from 1.1.2001 to 30.6.2006] and two years of deemed regular service arrived at in lieu of ten years of continuous daily waged service [i.e from 1.1.1991 to 31.12.2000] and additional two years of regular service upto the deemed age of retirement of 60 years [i.e. from 1.7.2006 to 30.6.2008] in view of the Full Bench Judgment in CWP No. 2711 of 2017, titled as Baldev vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, decided on 22.02.2022.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the mandate of Hon’ble Supreme Court, in case, of Sunder Singh Versus State of Himachal Pradesh, in Civil Appeal No.6309 of 2017, decided on 8.3.2018, the operative part thereof, read as under:-

“6. Some of the petitioners whose writ petitions were disposed of vide the Division Bench's Judgment dated 31.05.2012 chose to assail the said judgment before the Hon'ble Apex Court by filing Special Leave Petitions. The SLPs were connected and decided on 08.03.2018 under the lead case Civil Appeal No. 6309 of 2017, titled as Sunder Singh vs. State of H.P. and others. It would be pertinent to mention herein that the appellant in the aforesaid case were all retired regular Class-IV employees seeking to count the daily wage service, rendered by them prior to their regularization, towards qualifying service for pension. The Hon'ble Apex Court disposed of the petition with the following order:

“1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The appellants represent class of Class-IV employees who were recruited initially as daily wagers such as Peon/Chowkidar/Sweeper/Farrash/Malis/Rasoia etc. Their services, thereafter, were regularized pursuant to the decision of this Court in Mool Raj Upadhyaya Vs. State of H.P. and Ors. 1994 Supp(2) SCC 316 under a Scheme. Regularization was after 10 years of service.

3. It is undisputed that the post-regularization an employee who had served for 10 years is entitled to pension for which work charge service is counted. Earlier, in terms of O.M. dated 14.05.1998, 50% of daily-wage service was also counted for pension after regularization but the rules have undergone change.

4. Since the appellants have not rendered the requisite 10 years of service they have been denied pension.

5. Even though strictly construing the Rules, the appellants may not be entitled to pension. However, reading the rules consistent with Articles 14, 38 and 39 of the Constitution of India and applying the doctrine of proportionate equality, we are of the view that they are entitled to weightage of service rendered as daily wagers towards