Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 494 (HP)

Bhag Chand v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2020-08-18

AJAY MOHAN GOEL

body2020
JUDGMENT Ajay Mohan Goel, J. - On 04.03.2020, while hearing this case, this Court passed the following order:- "This original application has been received by way of transfer from learned erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal and registered as CWPOA, wherein the petitioner has prayed for the following substantive reliefs:- "(i) That the respondents may kindly be directed to condone the shortage of few days in the years 1992 and 1994 for the purpose of continuity in service and seniority of the applicant in view of the judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as Mohd. Abdul Kadir and another vs. Director General of Police, Assam and others, (2009) 6 SCC 611 as well as order dated 14.12.2009 passed by thye Hon'ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh in CWP No. 4489 of 2009 titled as Ravi Kumar versus State of Himachal Pradesh & others (Annexure A-4). (ii) That the respondents may very kindly be directed to grant regularisation to the applicant as Beldar w.e.f. 31.12.1999 as per 8 years regularisation policy framed by the State Government in the year 2000, with all consequential benefits such as; arrears of pay for 4 years, pay fixation and seniority etc. (iii) That the respondents may very kindly be directed to declare the applicant entitled for pension after his retirement as per the prevailing rules prior to 2003." After making his submissions for some time, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that he shall be confining the relief prayed for by the petitioner in terms of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sunder Singh versus State of Himachal Pradesh, i.e. Civil Appeal No. 6309 of 2017, decided on 08.03.2018. His statement is taken on record. Learned Additional Advocate General to have instructions as to why the benefit of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court (supra) has not been given to the petitioner so as to make him eligible for receipt of pension. List on 28.03.2020, as prayed for." 2. Today, learned Additional Advocate General informs the Court that he has instructions to submit that petition be disposed of on merit. 3. List on 28.03.2020, as prayed for." 2. Today, learned Additional Advocate General informs the Court that he has instructions to submit that petition be disposed of on merit. 3. The limited prayer of the petitioner in this case is that in terms of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sunder Singh vs. The State of Himachal Pradesh and others, i.e. Civil Appeal No. 6309 of 2017, dated 08.03.2018, benefit of daily wage services rendered by the petitioner before his regularization be given to him so as to entitle him to receive pension. 4. It is not in dispute that petitioner was serving the respondents on daily wage basis from the year 1992 onwards till regularization of his services w.e.f. 01.01.2003. The petitioner thereafter superannuated from the service on 31.01.2012 on attaining the age of 58 years. The petitioner is stated to fall short of about 11 months' service so as to render him eligible to receive pension. 5. In Sunder Singh's case (supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court has been pleased to hold that Class-IV employees will be entitled to pension if they have been regularized and have completed total eligible service for more than 10 years and daily wage service of 5 years will be treated equal to one year of regular service for pension. Hon'ble Supreme Court has further held in the said judgment that on said basis, if the regular service of Class-IV employees is more than 8 years but less than 10 years, then their services shall be reckoned as 10 years. 6. In my considered view, the petitioner is entitled for the benefit of daily wage service rendered by him in terms of the judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sunder Singh's case (supra). Meaning thereby that for calculating the entire service period of the petitioner so as to render him eligible for the purpose of receipt of pension, he has to be given the benefit of daily wage services of 5 years, which is to be treated as one year regular service in terms of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sunder Singh's case (supra). 7. It is not in dispute that services of the petitioner stood regularized w.e.f. 01.01.2003, because as on the said date, he had completed 8 years of regular service by putting more than 240 days in each calendar year as a daily wage employee. 7. It is not in dispute that services of the petitioner stood regularized w.e.f. 01.01.2003, because as on the said date, he had completed 8 years of regular service by putting more than 240 days in each calendar year as a daily wage employee. This ipso facto means that as on the date his services were regularized, he was having minimum 5 years service on daily wage basis, which as per judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court is to be treated equal to one year regular service for the purpose of calculating the pension. In this background, the act of the State of not granting the benefit of above judgment to the petitioner is arbitrary and not sustainable in law. 8. Accordingly, this petition is partly allowed with the direction to the respondents that 5 years service rendered by the petitioner on daily wage basis be treated equal to one year regular service for the purpose of calculating the pension and thereafter pension be released in favour of the petitioner in accordance with law. It is further ordered that in case the petitioner is released pension in terms of this judgment within a period of 90 days from today alongwith arrears, then respondents need not pay any interest on the delayed payment of pension amount, but, in case, pension is not released within the period of 90 days from today, then simple interest at the rate of 6% per annum shall also be paid to the petitioner as from the due date of pension. The writ petition stands disposed of in above terms, so also pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.