Widow of Class-III employee entitled to family pension with weightage for daily wage service (5 years daily=1 year regular), qualifying total service over 10 years; notional from death date to 31.12.2017, actual from 01.01.2018.

JUDGMENT :

Ranjan Sharma, J.

Petitioner, Sudarshna Devi, being widow of Late Sh. Om Parkash has come up before this Court,seeking the following reliefs:-

“I. That the respondents may very kindly be directed to consider the services of the deceased husband of the applicant to be regularized with effect from 1.1.1994.

II. That the respondents be directed to release pension to the deceased from 1.5.2007 and thereafter family pension to the applicant from the date of death of the husband of the applicant.

III. That the respondents be directed to pay all the pecuniary benefits along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum.

IV. That the respondents be directed to pay all consequential benefits of regularization with effect from 1.1.1994 to the applicant.”

2. At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner, on instructions states that the petitioner shall be satisfied, in case notional family pension is granted to the present petitioner from date of death of husband on 20.09.2015 and actual family pensionary benefits are granted with effect from 01.01.2018, in terms of the principles mandated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 6309 of 2017 titled as Sunder Singh versus The State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors along with connected matters, decided on 08.03.2018 reiterated in Civil Appeal No. 4792 of 2022 titled as Balo Devi versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors., decided on 18.07.2022 and SLP(c) 1007 of 2024, State of Himachal Pradesh versus Roop Lal decided on 18.03.2025, entitling the Class-III and Class-IV Employees for pension/family pension, based on the regular service and the weightage granted for daily waged service with effect from 01.01.2018.

FACTUAL MATRIX:

3. Grievance of the petitioner is that husband of the petitioner, Late Sh. Om Parkash, was engaged as a Beldar on daily wage basis on 01.05.1984. Thereafter he served as a Pipeline man from 01.06.1984 and then as Assistant Fitter 01.04.1998 and then as Fitter 01.01.1989 onwards. It is further averred that the services of her Late husband were regularized from 01.04.1998 and he retired from service on attaining the age superannuation on 30.04.2007 after rendering 09 years of work charge/regular service but neither the pension has been granted to him nor resultant family pension due to the present petitioner namely Surdarshna Devi, being the widow has been granted after the death of her deceased husband on 20.09.2015, [Annexure A-4 with the writ petition].

STAND OF STATE AUTHORITIES IN REPLY- AFFIDAVIT:

4. Respondents have filed the Reply/Affidavit of Superintending Engineer, IPH Circle Una dated 11.05.2016. In Para-4 of the Reply/Affidavit and in Mandays Chart [Annexure R-1], the incumbency of deceased employee, namely Om Parkash, has been detailed by the respondents showing that the deceased employee had served as Beldar on daily wage basis 01.05.1984 and then as Pipeline man 01.06.1984; and then as Assistant Fitter from 01.04.1998 and then as Fitter from 01.01.1989 till his services were dispensed with, which led to the framing of a reference and its adjudication by the Labour Court vide Case 142 of 1990. Mandays Chart further indicates that the deceased employee was regularized with effect from 01.04.1998 and he continued to serve as such till superannuation on 30.04.2007. Reply further indicates that the husband of the petitioner died on 20.09.2015. It is further averred that all the admissible retiral benefits were released to the deceased employee and the pension is not admissible under the CCS (Pension) Rules 1972, as the deceased em