##PAGE1##

2026:HHC:8674

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA

CWP No. 6768 of 2024 th Decided on 24 March, 2026 Smt. Lachhi …Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others …Respondents

Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mo han Goel, Judge

1 Whether approved for reporting? Yes

For the petitioners: Mr. Uday Singh Banyal, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, Additional

Advocate General.

Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral

By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has,

inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs:-

I. “That the respondents may very kindly be directed to grant pension to the petitioner, widow of late Sh. Jagdish Chand, who was regular employee of respondents; first by holding/granting, pension to late Sh. Jagdish Chand and subsequently after the demise of Sh. Jagdish Chand, to the present

petitioner; in the ends of justice.

II. That the respondents may please be directed to pay arrears of pension to the petitioner from due date i.e., immediately after the superannuation of late Sh. Jadish Chand, i.e., 01.12.2006, onwards with interest at the rate of 7% till the filing of the present

petition.”

::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2026 20:19:04 :::CIS

2

2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication .of this petition are that the husband of the petitioner joined the respondent-Department on daily wage baHsis w.e.f. 20.01.1986. He was regularized as a Work Inspector vide Annexure P-2, dated 27.09.1999 and he superannuated from the office of

Assistant Engineer JSV, Sub-Division Salooni on 30.11.2006.

3. The contention of the petitioner is that in light of the fact that the petituioner before his regularization had put in 13 years of dailoy wage service, said service has to be taken into considCeration for computing the eligibility of the late husband of the petitioner for pension as also that of the petitioner to be

entitled for family pension.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that

H after the regularization of the late husband of the petitioner, he served for a period of 7 years, 1 month and 20 days upto his retirement. He further submitted that the late husband of the petitioner had put in 13 years of daily wage service, preceding the date of regularization, during which, the late husband of the petitioner had completed more than 240 days in each calendar

::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2026 20:19:04 :::CIS

3

year. In terms of the law declared by the Hon’ble Supreme

Court of India, in Balo Devi versus State of Himachal P.radesh and others, Civil Appeal No.4792 of 2022, arising out of SLP(C) No.18830 of 2021, decided on 18.07H.2022 and also in Sunder Singh versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others, in Civil Appeal No.6309 of 2017, decided on 08.03.2018, the 10 years of service rendered by the late husband of the petitioner was to culminate into 2 years of service to be added to the regular seruvice of the late husband of the petitioner for the purpose oof computing the total service rendered by the late husbaCnd of the petitioner for his entitlement for grant of pension. Learned counsel further argued that perusal of the reply filed by the State demonstrates that the reason why the State is denying the benefit of the judgments of the Hon’ble

H Supreme Court of India to the present petitioner is that the deceased husband of the petitioner was a Class-III employee, ignoring the fact that even of computation of total service rendered by a Class-III employee is no longer res-integra and the same stands settled upto the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in terms of the judgment in LPA No.196 of 2022, titled

::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2026 20:19:04 :::CIS

4

Roop Lal versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others, upheld

by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in terms whereo.f, even a Class-III employee is entitled for the counting of the daily wage service rendered by him to adjudgeH his eligibility for the grant of pension. Accordingly, learned counsel submitted that the act of the respondents of