IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.

LPA No.03 of 2026 .

Decided on: 1st January, 202P6

State of H.P and others

.......Appellants

versus

Hirda Ram

...Respondent

Coram

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S.Sandhawalia, Chief Justice.

The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge.

Whether approvoed for reporting?1

For the appellants: Mr.Sidharth Jalta, Deputy

Advocate General.

G.S. San dhawalia, Chief Justice (Oral)

The learned Single Judge has granted

consideration for grant of pension in view of the decision

Hrendered in LPA No.196 of 2022 titled Roop Lal vs. State of

H.P and others, decided on 11.10.2023, denied to the writ- petitioner by the State by noting that the SLP(C) No.1007 of 2024 instituted by the State has also been dismissed on

18.03.2025, against the said judgment.

2. Counsel for the State has tried to submit that the benefits as such in Sunder Singh vs. State of Himachal

1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.

Pradesh and others and Balo Devi and others vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others would not be applicable to Class-III employees. The judgment in Roop Lal’s case (supra) is also of retired Class-III employee, whereby counting of service rendered on daily wage basis before regularization/grant of work charge status was to be counted towards qualifying service for grant of pension.

3. Perusal of the writ petition which was filed by the employee would go onu to show that it is the specific case of the employee thaot he had worked as a daily wage Blacksmith in the resCpondent Department in the year 1984 and his services were regularized in January, 1997 and he retired from service on 31st January, 2006 and the writ-petitioner had rendered more than 9 years of regular services, but was idenied pension on the ground that he did not have the qualifying service of 10 years to his credit and, therefore, he had filed the writ petition, basing the judgment on Roop Lal’s case (supra).

4. In the reply filed by the State, there is an admission that the writ-petitioner was engaged as Blacksmith (Junior Technician) Class-III on daily wage basis w.e.f. the year 1986 and he had worked continuously with 240 days in each calendar year. His services were regularized on 01.01.1996 and thereafter he stood retired from service on 31.01.2025, when he was paid all the retiral dues after having rendered 9 years and 1 month regular service, which is less than 9 years and 9 months regular ser vice as prescribed under CCS Pension Rules, 1972.

5. The only distinction sought to be made in the reply was that Sunder Singh’s case (supra) is confined to the Class-IV employees, uwho were in continuous daily wage service prior too 31.12.1993, but the writ-petitioner was working asC Blacksmith, which is a Class-III post, which is now apparently not tenable, in view of a Co-ordinate Bench judgment in Roop Lal’s case (supra), which has been upheld upto the Apex Court. The relevant part reads as under:-

i “19. The claim herein is with respect to counting of H service as rendered on daily wage basis before Regularization/ grant of work charge status towards qualifying service for grant of pension. For the said adjudication what is relevant is the period rendered towards daily wage by the concerned employee irrespective of the status of the employee, Class-III/

Class IV.

20. The claim for pension is a recurring cause of action. The petitioner is an employee who belongs to a lower hierarchy in service. Delay in filing the present petition would dis-entitle the petitioner for grant of interest but he would definitely be entitled for monetary benefits prospectively. Further on account of delay in filing the present petition monetary benefits can be restricted to three years prior to the filing of the petition. In this respect it would be appropriate to refer to (2008) 8 Supreme Court Cases 648, titled as Union of India and others vs. Tarsem Singh, wherein it has been held that non-grant of pension is a continuing wrong which in spit