Jayanti Devi vs State Of H.P And Others

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J

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

Respondents have rejected the case of the petitioner for grant of pension/family pension on 20.11.2018 (Annexure P-6) by holding that she is not entitled for benefit of decision rendered in Sunder Singh versus The State of Himachal Pradesh & others.[ Civil Appeal No.6309/2017, decided on 08.03.2018.]

According to the respondents, petitioner’s husband late Sh. Prem Dass had worked on daily wage basis Mason (Class-III post), therefore, he did not fall within the purview of Sunder Singh as said decision was applicable to Class-IV employees. According to the respondents, the decision in Sunder Singh[Civil Appeal No.6309/2017, decided on 08.03.2018] was applicable only to Class-IV employees who were initially engaged as daily wagers such as Peon/Chowkidar/Sweeper etc. and thereafter, their services were regularized pursuant to the decision rendered in Mool Raj Upadhyaya versus State of H.P and others.[ 1994 Suppl(2) SCC 316].

The reasoning in the impugned order rejecting the representation of the petitioner is not in consonance with law. The relevant portion from the decision rendered in Sunder Singh[Civil Appeal No.6309/2017, decided on 08.03.2018] reads as under:-

“6. Accordingly, we direct that w.e.f 01.01.2018, the appellants or other similarly placed Class-IV employees will be entitled to pension if they have been duly regularized and have been completed total eligible service for more than 10 years. Daily wage service of 5 years will be treated equal to one year of regular service for pension. If on that basis, their services are more than 8 years but less than 10 years, their service will be reckoned as ten years.”

The above decision has further been clarified in Balo Devi and others versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others[Civil Appeal No.4792/2022, decided on 18.07.2022.] as under:-

“The intent of this Court was quite clear that : -

(a) The services rendered as a regular employee may first be computed.

(b) To the service as rendered to above, the component at the rate of one year of regular service for every five years of service as a daily wager, be added.

(c) If both the components as detailed in Paras a & b hereinabove, take the length of service to a level of more than eight years but less than ten years, in terms of last sentence of paragraph 6 of the Order, the services shall be reckoned as ten years.”

The benefit of the above decisions has not been restricted to those employees whose services were regularized in terms of Mool Raj Upadhyaya[1994 Suppl(2) SCC 316] decision. The benefit is applicable to all Class-IV as well as Class-III employees (Ref. Roop Lal vs. State of H.P. & Ors.[ LPA No.196/2022, decided on 11.10.2023.]) for counting the daily wage service rendered by them for the purpose of qualifying services for grant of pension.

Reasons for rejecting the prayer of the petitioner for grant of pension in light of Sunder Singh[Civil Appeal No.6309/2017, decided on 08.03.2018] and Balo Devi[Civil Appeal No.4792/2022, decided on 18.07.2022.] are not justified. Hence, office order dated 20.11.2018 is quashed and set-aside. Respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner afresh for grant of pension/family pension keeping in view Sunder Singh2 and Balo Devi[Civil Appeal No.4792/2022, decided on 18.07.2022.] and Roop Lal[LPA No.196/2022, decided on 11.10.2023.] within six weeks. 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.