Himachal Pradesh High Court
Gambharu Devi vs State Of Himachal Pradesh & Others on 12 October, 2023
Bench: Vivek Singh Thakur, Bipin Chander Negi
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
CWPOA No.7116 of 2020
Date of Decision: October 12, 2023
.
Gambharu Devi ...Petitioner.
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & others ..Respondents.
Coram:
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge.
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes
For the Petitioner: Mr.Devender K. Sharma, Advocate, vice
Mr.Chandernarayan Singh, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General,
r alongwith Mr.Rajesh Mandhotra, Additional
Advocate General.
Vivek Singh Thakur, J (Oral)
Petitioner has approached this Court, seeking
direction to the respondents to extend her benefit of her daily
waged service for counting qualifying service for pensionary
benefits, in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Civil
Appeal No.6309 of 2017, titled as Sunder Singh vs. State of H.P.
and others.
2. The Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.4792 of 2022,
titled as Balo Devi vs. State of H.P. & others, decided on 18.07.2022,
reported in Latest HLJ 2022 (HP)(2) 817, has further clarified the
judgment rendered in Sunder Singh's case, supra.
3. The only opposition to the prayer of the petitioner is
that in Sunder Singh's case benefit of daily waged service was
1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
extended to Class-IV employee, whereas, petitioner is Class-III
employee and, therefore, benefit of the said judgment is not
admissible to the petitioner.
.
4. The aforesaid issue, after taking into consideration
various pronouncements of the Supreme Court, has been decided
by this Court in judgment dated 11.10.2023, passed in LPA No.196 of
2022, titled as Roop Lal vs. State of H.P. & others, whereby it has
been held as under:-
"21.... ... ...we are of he considered view that the purpose of
pension, the Constitutional mandate contained in Articles 14,
38, 39 of the Constitution of India and the doctrine of
proportionate equality would be required to be read into the
Rules as has been held by the Apex Court in Sunder Singh's
case supra in order to give weightage of service rendered as
daily wager towards regular service for the purpose of
pension even to Class-III employees."
5. Issue involved in present case is not only similar but
identical to the issue involved in LPA No.196 of 2022. Therefore,
reasons assigned for deciding Roop Lal's case shall be mutatis
mutandi applicable to the present case also and, accordingly,
respondent-State is directed to extend benefit of Daily Wage
service to the petitioner, in terms of Sunder Singh's case, as
explained in Balo Devi's case, for calculating qualifying service for
the purpose of pension, and to extend all benefits of pension to the
petitioner within one month from today.
6. Present petition was filed on 26.06.2019 three years
prior to that shall commence from 01.06.2016. However, in view of
direction contained in Sunder Singh's case, petitioner shall be
entitled for arrears on actual basis from 01.01.2018. Benefits
accruing prior to 01.01.2018, if any, shall be only on notional basis.
7. In case pensionary benefits are not extended to the
.
petitioner on or before 31.12.2023, petitioner shall also be entitled
for interest @ 6% per annum from the date of accrual till final
payment thereof.
8. Petition is allowed and disposed of in aforesaid terms,
so also pending application(s), if any.
r to (Vivek Singh Thakur),
Judge.
(Bipin Chander Negi),
Judge.
October 12, 2023
(Purohit)
