Manka Devi Vs the State of Hp and Others

2026:HHC:12484

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

CWP No.6335 of 2025 Decided on: 16.04.2026

Manka Devi	… Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and others	… Respondents

¶5

Coram

¶6

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?¹ Yes

¶7

____________________________________________________ _ For the petitioner: M/s P.D. Nanda and Anita Jalota, Advocates. For the respondents: Mr. Rajat Chauhan, Assistant Advocate General.

¶8

Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral)

¶9

By way of this petition, the petitioner has, inter alia , prayed for the following reliefs:-

¶10

“ i) The respondents may kindly be directed to consider the case of petitioner for regularization with effect 1.04.2014 instead from 7.04.2017 with all consequential benefits. ii) The respondents may be directed to finalize the pension case of the petitioner by reckoning her qualifying service from 1.4.2014 instead from 7.4.2017 and by granting her the benefit of daily wage service in term of judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Balo Devi, with arrear of pension and other retirement benefits from the date of retirement till actual payment of pension amount alongwith interest of 6% per annum. ”

¶11

Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that the petitioner was initially engaged as a worker on part time basis on 08.04.1997. Thereafter, her status was converted to a daily

¶12

1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶13

2

¶14

2026:HHC:12484

¶15

wages on 07.04.2007. Her services were regularised on 24.07.2017 and she retired as such on 30.06.2022. The prayer of the petitioner is that the respondents be directed to consider her case for regularization, w.e.f. 01.04.2014 instead of 07.04.2007, for the purpose of grant of pension and other consequential benefits.

¶16

Learned Counsel for the petitioner argued that in light of the fact that the petitioner was conferred the daily wages status on 07.04.2007, she should have been regularized after completion of 7 years service from the year 2014 and the act of the respondents of not doing so is bad in law. Learned Counsel further argued that a mandamus be issued, directing the respondents to confer regularization upon the petitioner w.e.f. 01.04.2014, i.e. after completion of 7 years of service as per the Policy of the State and then grant pension to her from the date of her superannuation.

¶17

On the other hand, the stand of the State is that as the petitioner did not fulfill the criteria for grant of pension, the petition is completely misconceived. Learned Assistant Advocate General has drawn the attention of the Court to the reply filed by the State and submitted that in the present case, the petitioner was appointed as a Part Time Worker w.e.f. 08.04.1997 and initially her services were converted into daily wage basis on 07.04.2007. However, she was thereafter given daily wage status w.e.f. 07.04.2007, in light of certain judgments passed by the Court, reference whereof is given in the reply, i.e. post completion of 10 years of continuous service as a

¶18

3

¶19

2026:HHC:12484

¶20

Part Time Worker. Learned Assistant Advocate General further argued that the petitioner was regularized as soon as a vacancy of Class-IV became available in the Department in the year 2017 and, therefore, as her regularization was from the due date when the vacancy became available, the petitioner cannot claim regularization retrospectively. Learned Assistant Advocate General thus argued that in light of the fact that the petitioner had completed 5 years and 2 months of regular service before her retirement and the minimum service which is required for entitlement of pensionery benefits is 10 years, she is not entitled for the grant of pension, even if, she is given the benefit of 2 years taking into account daily wage service rendered by her in light of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Balo Devi Versus State of H.P. & others and Sunder Singh Versus State of H.P. and others, as that also takes the service of the petitioner to 7 years and 1 month only.

¶21

Having heard learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Assistant Advocate General, this Court is of the considered view that though the petitioner is not entitled for regularization from back date, as has been urged by her, but the minimum the respondent-Department was required to do, once the service of the petitioner was converted as a daily wager, was that it should have conferred the status of work charge upon the petitioner on completion of 8 years of service. Even if, her regularization which was conferred upon her, was to be from the date when a clear cut

¶22

4

¶23

2026:HHC:12484

¶24

vacancy became available, yet she was required to be conferred work charge status upon completion of 8 years of service, i.e. w e f. 07.04.2015. The act of the Department of not doing so is bad in law, as it is not in spirit with the judgment passed by this Court on the said subject, as upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in various judgments including Civil Appeal No. 1595 of 2025, titled The State of Himachal Pradesh and others vs. Surajmani and another, decided on 06.02.2025 .

¶25

Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in CWP No.2384 of 2018, titled State of Himachal Pradesh and Others Versus Sh.Matwar Singh & Another, decided on 18.12.2018 has, inter alia , held that work charge service followed by regular appointment will count towards qualifying service for the purpose of pension and other retiral benefits. Applying the said judgment to the facts of this case, as the petitioner was entitled for conferment of work charge status w.e.f. 07.04.2015, from said date till the date of her superannuation, the petitioner had completed seven years and one month’s service. Now, on this period of 7 years and 1 month, as the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of additional two years in light of the fact that she had rendered 10 years of daily wage service before her regularization and there is no dispute that she had put in 240 days in each calendar year of daily wage service, this takes her total length of service to nine years and one month. In light of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Balo Devi’s case, which states

¶26

5

¶27

2026:HHC:12484

¶28

that the period of above 8 years of continuous service has to be construed as 10 years for pension purpose, the petitioner is entitled for pension.

¶29

The petition is accordingly allowed by holding that though the petitioner is not entitled for conferment of regularization from the back date, as has been prayed for in the petition, she is entitled for conferment of work charge status upon completion of 8 years of service on daily wage basis. She is also entitled for the counting of this period alongwith regular service rendered by her for pensionary benefits in terms of the judgment of this Court in State of Himachal Pradesh and Others Versus Sh.Matwar Singh & Another (supra). She is also entitled for the addition of two years to the total service rendered by her post conferment of work charge status in lieu of daily wage service rendered by her in light of judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Balo Devi’s case.The petitioner is held entitled for pension from the date of her retirement notionally and actual benefits shall be conferred upon her three years prior to filing of this petition.

¶30

The petition stands disposed of in above terms. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.

¶31

(Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge

¶32

April 16, 2026 (Rishi)

Manka Devi v. the State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manka Devi v. the State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hem Raj Vs State of Hp and Others

Vishal Vs the State of Hp and Others

Naresh Kumar Vs the State of Hp and Others

Krishan Chand Vs the State of Hp and Others

Harsh Vardhan Soni and Others Vs Union of India and Others

Komal Vs the State of Hp and Another