IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

CWP No.19516 of 2025

Decided on: 12.12.2025.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Surender Singh …..Petitioner

Versus

State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Coram

Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua

Whether approved for reporting?

For the Petitioner: Mur. Ashwani Gupta, Mr. Bonit Thakur,

Advocates.

For the Respondents: Mr. Vishwadeep Sharma, Additional

Advocate General, Mr. Sikander Bhushan and Ms. Menka Raj Chauhan, Deputy Advocates General for respondents No. 1

to 4.

Mr. Tek Ram Sharma, Advocate, for

g respondent No.5.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge

Notice. Mr. Vishwadeep Sharma, learned

Additional Advocate General and Mr. Tek Ram Sharma, learned counsel, appear and waive service of notice on behalf of the respondents No. 1 to 4 and respondent No.5,

respectively.

2. This writ petition has been filed for grant of

following substantive reliefs:-

1 Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes.

“i) That the instructions/policy dated 26^th September, 2025, Annexure P-3, may be read down/quashed because the same are contrary to the law.

ii) That the respondents may be ordered Pto pay pension to the petitioner from the date he has been retired from service, with all benefits incidental thereof.”

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he is under instructions to submit that this writ petition be treated to be confined only to the grant of relief No.(ii) i.e. for counting the work chargte status rendered by the petitioner as qualifying service for the purpose of pension and that relief No.(i) be treated to have been given up.

This writ petition has accordingly been heard as confined to relief No. (ii).

3. In view of settled position in law, the pleadings and submission made by learned counsel for the parties, there is no requirement for calling of reply from the respondents. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, matter is heard at this stage.

4. The case set up by the petitioner is that he was conferred work charge status w.e.f. January, 2011 and he superannuated as Forest Guard on 31.08.2025. For considering the case of petitioner for grant of pension under the Central Civil Services (CCS) Pension Rules, 1972, respondents directed the petitioner to deposit specific sum, which was also deposited by the petitioner. Reference in this regard was made to copies of e-challans placed on record. The petitioner’s grievance is that pension has still not been sanctioned and released in his favour by the respondents on the ground that work charge service is not liable to be counted as qualifying service for the purpfose of pension and other retiral benefits.

Law in this regard laid down by this Court as also by the Hon’ble Apex Court had been summarized in Naina Devi Vs. State of H.P. and Ors, CWP No.2960 of 2020, decided on 09.08.2024 as under:-

“C7. In State of H.P. and others vs. Sukru Ram and another, CMPM no.423 of 2017, decided by a Division Bench of this Court on 23.5.2017, it was held as hunder:

“The issue is no longer res integra, which stands settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Punjab State Electricity Board and another v. Narata Singh and another, (2010) 4 SCC 317, as also earlier decision of this Court in CWP No.2240 of 2008, titled as The State of H.P. and others v. Sh. Tulsi Ram, decided on 31.5.2012, in which learned Single Judge, while holding the service rendered by the writ petitioner on work-charged basis from 1.4.2001 to 2.4.2017 to be counted for the purpose of pension”

8. Later in State of H.P. & others vs. Matwar Singh & another, CWP No. 2384 of 2018, decided by a Division Bench of this Court on 18.12.2018, it was held as under:-

“It is by now well settled that the work charge status followed by regular appointment has to be counted as a component of qua