Himachal Pradesh High Court
Decided On 02Nd September vs State Of Himachal Pradesh And Others on 2 September, 2024
Author: Ajay Mohan Goel
Bench: Ajay Mohan Goel
2024:HHC:8760-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT
SHIMLA
CWP No. 1223 of 2022
Decided on 02nd September, 2024
.
Sh. Om Chand and others
...Petitioners
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and others
...Respondents
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge
1
Whether approved for reporting?
For the petitioners:
r Mr. A.K. Gupta, Advocate.
For the respondents: Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, Additional
Advocate General, for respondents
No.1 to 4.
Mr. Tek Chand Sharma, Advocate, for
respondent No.5.
Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral)
By way of this writ petition, the petitioners have
prayed that the respondents be directed to add 2 years' service
to the total service rendered by them on regular basis, in terms
of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in
Sunder Singh versus The State of Himachal Pradesh, Civil
Appeal No.6309 of 2017 to compute the pension payable to
them. Further prayer is for quashing of Annexure P-2, in terms
2024:HHC:8760-DB
whereof, the representation of the petitioners to grant pension
to them by adding 2 years weightage has been rejected by
observing that this weightage is only for the purpose of
.
entitlement for pension and not for enhancing the number of
years for the purpose of calculating the pension.
2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this
petition are that the petitioners were initially engaged in the
respondents-Department on daily wage basis and their services
were thereafter regularized. Post regularization, they completed
10 years' qualifying service for the purposes of pension and
were granted pension from the due date. The contention of the
petitioners is that the service rendered by them on daily wage
basis, has not been added to the qualifying service so as to
calculate the pension.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that
in terms of law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in
Sunder Singh's case supra, (Annexure P-1), the petitioners
should be given 2 years added weightage for the purpose of
the calculation of pension and the act of the respondents of not
doing so be declared as bad.
2024:HHC:8760-DB
4. On the other hand, the stand of the respondents is
that the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is to the
.
rescue of those incumbents, who after regularization were not
having 10 years' service so as to render them eligible for
pension. Learned Additional Advocate General has argued that,
in terms of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in such
a situation, 5 years daily wage service is treated as 1 year
regular service so as to add the same to the regular service
rendered by the incumbent and if by addition thereof, the
incumbent becomes eligible for the grant of pension, then, he
has to be granted pension. He further submitted that the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is not to the effect that
if a person otherwise is eligible for pension, then, the daily
wage service rendered by him has to be added as to enhance
the number of years to calculate the pension payable to him.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and
have also carefully gone through the pleadings and the
documents appended therewith including the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court.
2024:HHC:8760-DB
6. In terms of the averments made in the writ petition,
all the petitioners after the regularization of their services,
.
completed more than 10 years of service and were accordingly
found eligible for the grant of pension.
7. Their prayer is that the daily wage service rendered
by them be added to the actual regular service of theirs, in
terms of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sunder
Singh's case supra and pension be paid to them by calculating
the same by crediting the daily wage service also for the said
purpose, in terms of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court.
8. This Court is of the considered view that this
contention of the petitioners is without any merit. Before
proceeding further, it is relevant to refer to the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Sunder Singh's Case, being
relied upon by the petitioner. In Civil Appeal No.6309 of 2017,
titled Sunder Singh versus The State of Himachal Pradesh and
others, decided on 08.03.2018, the Hon'ble Supreme Court
was pleased to hold that in a case, where the incumbent is not
2024:HHC:8760-DB
entitled to pension strictly by construing the rules, weightage of
service rendered on daily wage be given for the purpose of
pension. Hon'ble Supreme Court thereafter held that in the
.
case of Class-IV employees, who were not having 10 years'
service after regularization, daily wage service of 5 years will be
treated equal to 1 year of regular service for pension, meaning
thereby, that if on that basis, where services are more than 8
years, but less than 10 years, their services will be reckoned as
10 years.
9. In said judgment, no law was laid down by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court that the daily wage service shall be
counted for any other purpose except rendering a person
eligible for the receipt of pension so as create a fiction that
service rendered by the incumbent should be treated as 10
years' service by giving him the benefit of 1 year for a daily
wage service of 5 years for the purpose of pension.
10. Therefore, this Court has no hesitation in holding
that no findings were returned by Hon'ble Supreme Court to the
effect that in the case of persons, who are otherwise eligible for
the receipt of pension i.e., who are having the requisite number
2024:HHC:8760-DB
of 10 years' service post regularization, daily wage service
rendered by such incumbents has to be taken into
consideration by treating 5 years daily wage service as 1 year
.
regular service so as to calculate the pension payable to them
on said basis by adding additional years to the actual years of
service rendered by them.
11. Accordingly, in view of the above discussion, this
writ petition is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous applications,
if any, also stand disposed of.
(Ajay Mohan Goel)
Judge
September 02, 2024
(Vinod)
