##PAGE1##

2026:HHC:3852

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

CWP No.1407 of 2026

Decided on: 22.04.2026

Smt. Kaushalya Devi … Petitioner

Versus .

State of Himachal Pradesh and others … Respondents

Coram

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?1

____________________________________________________ _

For the petitioner: Ms. Babita Chauhan, Advocate, vice

Mr. A.K. Gupta, Advocate.

For the respondents: Mr.Anup Rattan, Advocate General, with

Mr. Rahul Thakur, Deputy Advocate

Gueneral, for the respondents.

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

g ordered to be granted w.e.f. 1.1.2018 as has been done in

the other similarly situated cases, with all benefits

H 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

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

::: Downloaded on - 28/04/2026 23:21:52 :::CIS

2

2026:HHC:3852

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 judgmenHts of the Hon’ble

Supreme Court of India in Sunder Singh Vs. The State of Himachal

Pradesh & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 6309f 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

submitte d 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

::: Downloaded on - 28/04/2026 23:21:52 :::CIS

3

2026:HHC:3852

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 Hjudgment of this

Court has been upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the

benefit of daily wage service in terms of thef 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 grou nds 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