Disposed¶25

Madan Lal v. State of Hp and Others

Pension – counting of daily wage service towards qualifying service

Himachal Pradesh HC9 Apr 2025CWP/9054/2023

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madan Lal v. State of H.P. & Ors., CWP No.9054 of 2023, High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla, decided 09.04.2025, Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua. Pension; qualifying service; counting of daily wage service; Class-III employee; minimum required length of service; Roop Lal (LPA No.196 of 2022); Sunder Singh (Civil Appeal No.6309 of 2017); Balo Devi (Civil Appeal No.4792 of 2022); SLP(C) No.1007/2024 dismissed by Apex Court on 18.03.2025; direction to consider pension case within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the respondents to consider the petitioner's case for grant of pension in light of the Roop Lal decision within six weeks and to communicate the order so passed to the petitioner; pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. ¶25

Madan Lal Vs State of Hp and Others — Himachal Pradesh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No.9054 of 2023 Decided on: 9^th April, 2025

¶2

Madan Lal ....Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. …Respondents _________________________________________________________________

¶3

Coram

¶4

Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua

¶5

1 Whether approved for reporting?

¶6

_________________________________________________________________ For the petitioner: Mr. Bonit Prakash, Advocate. For the respondents: Ms. Menka Raj Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents No. 1 to 4. Mr. Rangil Singh, Advocate, for respondent No.5.

¶7

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge

¶8

Petitioner retired as Class-III employee on 31.03.2004. He has been denied the pension for not

¶9

satisfying the condition of minimum required length of service. Petitioner seeks counting of his daily wage service towards qualifying service for the purpose of pension and pensionary benefits. The claim has been made on the

¶10

1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes

¶11

¶12

strength of decision rendered in Roop Lal Versus State of

¶13

H.P. & Others² . Relevant portion from the decision reads as

¶14

under:-

¶15

“21. In view of the aforesaid proposition of law, we are of that the purpose of pension, the considered view 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-Ill employees.

¶16

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.

¶17

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 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.”

¶18

2. In the aforesaid judgment, decision rendered in

¶19

Sunder Singh Versus The State of Himachal Pradesh &

¶20

2 LPA No.196 of 2022, decided on 11.10.2023

¶21

¶22

Ors.³ and Balo Devi & others Versus State of Himachal

¶23

Pradesh and others⁴ have been held applicable to Class-III employees as well.

¶24

3. Respondents in their reply filed on 20.07.2024 have denied benefit of aforesaid decisions to the petitioner on account of pendency of SLP(C) No.1007/2024 . It is a matter of record that SLPC 1007 of 2024 , instituted by the State against the aforesaid decision, has been dismissed by the Hon’ble Apex Court on 18.03.2025.

¶25

4. In view of above, this writ petition is disposed of by directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for grant of pension in light of decision rendered in Roop Lal’s² case within a period of six weeks from today. The order so passed be also communicated to the petitioner.

¶26

Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also

¶27

to stand dispose of.

¶28

Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge

¶29

April 9, 2025

¶30

R.Atal

¶31