Gurdarshan Singh vs State Of H.P. And Others

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J

Notice. Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, learned Additional Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on be alf of t e respondents. Considering the grievances of the petitioner and the order impugned herein as also the nature of order being passed hereinafter, reply is not required to be called for from the respondents.

With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard at this stage.

Respondent No.2-the Labour Commissioner-cum-Director of Employment & Overseas Placement, Government of Himachal Pradesh has declined to grant pension to the petitioner on the ground that he does not have to his credit minimum 10 years of qualifying service required under the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. While passing the impugned order, respondent No.2 has noticed the following facts:-

3(i). Petitioner was engaged as Part-Time Worker on 19.02.1996.

3(ii). Petitioner’s se vices were converted into daily wages on 31.08.2007. F rther, his services were regularized w.e.f. 08.08.2016.

3(iii). Petitioner retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.04.2025.

Impugned order itself acknowledges that the petitioner has to his credit approximately 08 years and 09 months of regular service. However, the impugned order does not take cognizance of daily wage service rendered by the petitioner w.e.f. 31.08.2007 till 08.08.2016, i.e. almost 09 years of daily wage service. In view of law laid down in Sunder Singh Versus The State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. Civil Appeal No.6309 of 2017, decided on 08.03.2018 and Balo Devi & others Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others Civil Appeal No.4792 of 2022, decided on 18.07.2022, the daily wage service rendered by the petitioner is to be proportionately computed towards regular service. This exercise has been omitted by respondent No.2. It is quite evident that in case this exercise is carried out, prima facie, the petitioner would become eligible for grant of pension in terms of the law laid down in Sunder Singh2 and Balo Devi3.

Respondents are high - ranking officials and dealing with the pension cases of heir employees day in and day out. They are supposed to be abreast with the settled legal position governing the issue. Mechanically passing the orders, rejecting the genuine cases of release of pension, is not expected from the officials holding such high-ranking posts.

This writ petition is, therefore, allowed. Impu ned decision as contained in office letter dated 2. 08.2025 (Annexure P-5) issued by respondent No.2, rejecting the case of the petitioner for grant of pension, is quashed and set aside with costs of Rs.10,000/- to be paid the petitioner by respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 is directed to take a fresh decision in the matter for grant of pension to the petitioner in accordance with law as also in light of the observations made above, within two weeks from today, i.e. by or before 20.11.2025. 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.