IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of relevant case law, specifically the judgments in the cases of Sunder Singh, Balo Devi, and Roop Lal, to determine pension entitlement and the limitation on actual monetary benefits/arrears.

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. Tek Ram Sharma, learned counsel, 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, having retired from the post of Pump Operator on 30.04.2005, has filed the instant writ petition, with the following prayer:-

i) “That the respondents may be ordered to pay pension to the petitioner from the due date with all benefits incidental thereof.”

4. In the background of the relief(s), prayed for above, the case of the petitioner as submitted by the learned counsel is that, the petitioner was engaged as Pump Operator, Class-III on daily wage basis, in Irrigation and Public Health Division Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P. w.e.f. 1996. He further submits that he was conferred work and was then regularized, as Pump Operator in terms of the mandate of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mool Raj Upadhyaya w.e.f. 01.01.2000. The petitioner retired from the service of respondents on 30.04.2005 after rendering more than eight years of service

5. The case of the petitioner is that initially the respondents have not granted the benefit of pension to the petitioner on the plea that he had “not rendered the requisite “qualifying service of ten years” by counting the nine years and seven months of regular service in lieu of ten years of daily wage service, in terms of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, in case of Sunder Singh.

6. Now, the grievance of the petitioner is that the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sunder Singh versus State of Himachal Pradesh [Civil Appeal No.6309 of 2017, dated 8.3.2017] has been clarified by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Balo Devi Versus State of HP [2022 HP(2) 817], which mandates that in case, the regular service and regular service after giving proportional weightage in lieu of daily wage service comes to eight years then also the service of eight years is to be treated as ten years service and such an employee is entitled for pension. Even the Division bench of this Court in the case of Roop Lal Versus State of Himachal Pradesh [LPA 196 of 2022, decided on 11.10.2023] has mandated the respondents to grant pension, even to Class-III employees by treating the eight years of service actually rendered [regular service and regular service after giving proportional weightage of daily wage service as above] by treating it as ten years of qualifying service for pension. In this background, the said period of service of eight years rendered by the petitioner be treated as ten years of qualifying service, therefore, despite the eligibility and entitlement, in terms of the mandate of law; the denial of pension to the petitioners w.e.f. 01.01.2018 till day was illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 and Article 300-A of the Constitution of India.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the mandate of Hon’ble Apex 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 Ap