Himachal Pradesh High Court
_________________________________________________________________ vs State Of H.P. & Ors on 7 May, 2025
Author: Jyotsna Rewal Dua
Bench: Jyotsna Rewal Dua
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
CWP No.5110 of 2024
Decided on: 7th May, 2025
_________________________________________________________________
Karam Singh ....Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. & Ors. ...Respondents
_________________________________________________________________
Coram
Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua
1 Whether approved for reporting?
_________________________________________________________________
For the petitioner: Mr. Tanuj Thakur, Advocate.
For the respondents: Mr. Sikandar Bhushan, Deputy
Advocate General.
Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge
The case set up by the petitioner is that:-
(i). He was appointed as Work Inspector (Class-III
employee) on daily wage basis with the respondent-
Department in October, 1988.
(ii). His services were regularized as Work Inspector in
the year 1999 on completion of 12 years of continuous
service.
(iii). Petitioner superannuated from service as Work
Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes
Inspector (Class-III employee) on 31.07.2007. He has not been
granted pension and pensionary benefits as he has not to his
credit requisite qualifying service in terms of the Central Civil
Services (Pension) Rules.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance
upon Roop Lal Versus State of H.P. & Others 2, whereby
benefit of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sunder
Singh Versus The State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors.3 and
Balo Devi & others Versus State of Himachal Pradesh
and others4 was ordered to be extended to Class-III
employees as well. Relevant portion from the aforesaid
decision reads as under:-
"22. In view of the above discussion, 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. However, the petitioner shall
be entitled for monetary benefits three years prior to
the date of filing of the petition. Benefits accruing
beyond three years prior to filling of the petition, if
any, shall be only on notional basis.
22-A. With respect to the cut-off date from which actual
monetary benefits are to be extended, keeping in
view the law laid down by Supreme Court in Sunder
Singh's and Balo Devi's cases, it is further clarified
that the petitioner shall be entitled for actual
monetary benefits w.e.f. 1.1.2018 and the monetary
LPA No.196 of 2022, decided on 11.10.2023
Civil Appeal No.6309 of 2017, decided on 08.03.2018
Civil Appeal No.4792 of 2022, decided on 18.07.2022
benefits, if any, prior to 1.1.2018 shall only be on
notional basis, but if the three years period, prior to
filing of the petition, is subsequent to 1.1.2018, then
the actual benefits shall be granted from such
subsequent date."
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
SLP(C) No.1007/2024 preferred by the State against the
aforesaid decision has been dismissed by the Hon'ble Apex
Court on 18.03.2025.
3. In view of the aforesaid decision in Roop Lal's2
case and dismissal of respondents' appeal against this
decision, the present writ petition is disposed of by directing
the respondents to consider and decide the case of the
petitioner for grant of pension and pensionary benefits to him
in accordance with law as well as in light of the aforesaid
decision, within a period of six weeks from today. The
decision so arrived at shall also be communicated to the
petitioner.
The writ petition stands disposed of in the above
terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if
any.
Jyotsna Rewal Dua
Judge
May 7, 2025
R.Atal
