Service rendered by Class-III employees on a daily wage basis must be counted towards pension eligibility, as established by Supreme Court rulings.

Judgment :

Ajay Mohan Goel, J.

CMP No. 6973 of 2026

In view of the averments contained in the application, the same is allowed. The application stands disposed of.

CWP No. 579 of 2023

2. With the consent of the parties, this petition is being disposed of at this stage, today itself.

3. The case of the petitioner is that he was engaged as a daily wage Mason in IPH Sub-Division Chowari, Division Dalhousie, District Chamba, H.P, in the year 1991. He continuously worked as such by putting in full 240 days in each calendar year. His services were brought on work charge/regular establishment with effect from 01.01.2001. Thereafter, his services were regularized vide Annexure P-1, dated 28.07.2003. The petitioner superannuated on 30.06.2010. The grievance of the petitioner is that the work charge service rendered by him, as also the service rendered on daily wage basis have not be taken into consideration for assessing his eligibility to receive pension, in terms of the law settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in its judgments titled as Balo Devi Vs. State of H.P. & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 4792 of 2022, decided on 18.07.2022 and Sunder Singh Vs. The State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 6309 of 2017, decided on 08.03.2018. It is in this backdrop that the petitioner is before this Court.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner after being regularized on 28.07.2003, served as such till 30.06.2010. Before this, he was brought on work charge/regular establishment with effect from 01.01.2001 and in terms of the law declared by Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in CWP No. 2384 of 2018, titled State of Himachal Pradesh & Others Vs. Sh. Matwar Singh & Another, decided on 18.12.2018, this period has to be taken into consideration for assessing the eligibility of the petitioner to receive pension. Learned counsel further submitted that as per the law declared by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Balo Devi’s and Sunder Singh’s case (supra), five years of daily wage service with 240 days in each calendar year has to be treated as one year, which is to be added to the regular service rendered by an employee to render him or her eligible for grant of pension. Learned counsel submitted that in the present case, as from the date when the petitioner was brought on work charge/regular establishment, he served the Department for about nine years and six months. He further submitted that as the petitioner had rendered daily wage service from the year 1991 till the year 2001, this period of 10 years has to be calculated as being equivalent to two years and when these two years are added to nine years and six months, this takes the total service of the petitioner beyond 10 years, thus rendering him eligible for the receipt of pension. Accordingly, the learned counsel for the petitioner prayed that in this backdrop of the non-grant of pension to the petitioner is arbitrary and respondents be directed to pay the pension to the petitioner with effect from 01.01.2018 in terms of the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.

5. The stand of the State is that as the service rendered by the petitioner, including work charge service, was of nine years and six months, i.e., less than 10 years, he is not entitled to receive pension and the same has been rightly denied to him. Learned Assistant Advocate General by referring to the reply filed by the respondents submitted that the petitioner cannot take the benefit of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Balo Devi’s and Sunder Singh’s case (supra), for the reason that those judgments are relatable to Class-IV employees, whereas, the petitioner happens to be a Class-III employee. Learned A