Whether approved for reporting?¹Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

____________________________________________________ _

Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral)

By way of this petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following relief:-

“That the respondents may be ordered to process case of the petitioner for family pension and the same may be ordered to be granted w.e.f. 1.1.2018 as has been done in the other similarly situated cases, with all bene incidental thereof such as arrears of pension etc.”

2. The case of the petitioner is that her husband was engaged as a Mason on daily wage basis in the I&PH Division in the year 1980. His services were brought on regular establishment w.e.f. 01.01.1994 and he retired from service on 28.02.2002. As per the petitioner, her husband was denied the pension on the ground that he had not completed 10 years of service after regularization.

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that as the husband of the petitioner had put in more than 10 years on daily wage service before his services were regularized, therefore, he was entitled for the grant of pension by adding 2 years on daily wage service to his regular service in light of the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Sunder Singh Vs. The State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 6309 of 2017, decided on 08.03.2018 and Balo Devi Vs. State of H.P. & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 4792 of 2022, decided on 18.07.2022.

4. On the other hand, the stand of the State is that husband of the petitioner was engaged in service in the year 1980 and was brought on work charge establishment w.e.f. 01.01.1994 as a Mason, which is a Class-III post. Learned Advocate General submitted that the petitioner retired on 28.02.2002 and thus had only completed 8 years and 2 months of regular service when he retired. Learned Counsel further submitted that the judgments being relied upon by the petitioner relate to Class-IV employees and herein, as the petitioner superannuated as a Class-III employee, therefore, he is not entitled for the benefit of the judgments in Sunder Singh and Balo Devi’s case (supra). Accordingly, in light of the reply filed by the respondents, the petitioner is not entitled for the reliefs prayed for.

5. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and having perused the pleadings and documents appended therewith, this Court is of the considered view that the relief cannot be denied to the petitioner, as prayed for, on the ground that her husband stood retired from a Class-III post.

6. It now stands settled by way of LPA No.196 of 2022, titled Roop Lal Versus State of H.P. & others, which judgment of this Court has been upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the benefit of daily wage service in terms of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sunder Singh Vs. The State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. (supra), has to be granted to a Class-III employee also. This legal position is not in dispute, more so in light of the fact that even the review petition against the said judgment stands dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, as was intimated to the Court. That being the case, now the denial of family pension to the petitioner on the grounds mentioned in the reply is not sustainable in the eyes of law.

7. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. The act of the respondents of denying the family pension to the petitioner by not adding the daily wage service rendered by her late husband to the service rendered by him after regularization/ conferment of work charge status is held to be bad in law. The respondents are directed to give the benefit of daily wage service while assessing the eligibility of the deceased-husband of the petitioner to receive pension in terms of the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Sunder Singh Vs. The State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 6309 of 2017, decided on 08.03.2