JUDGMENT : Sandeep Sharma, J. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with order dated 26.10.2020 passed by the Executive Director H.P. State Electricity Board limited, Vidhut Bhawan, Shimla, in purported compliance of order dated 26.10.2018, passed by the H.P. State Administrative Tribunal, whereby, directions were issued to respondents/competent authority to decide the case of the petitioner for grant pension in light of judgment dated 8th March, 2018, passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 6309 of 2017, titled as Sunder Singh Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein to set aside aforesaid order and issue directions to respondents/competent authority to extend the benefit of judgment passed in Sunder Singh’s case, which has been further clarified and explained in other judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in Balo Devi Vs. State of H.P. & others i.e. Civil Appeal No. 4792 of 2022. 2. Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerged from the record are that in the year 1971, husband of the petitioner late Sh. Dhani Ram was appointed as T­Mate, on daily wage basis, with the respondents­Board. On 09.09.1992, services of late Sh. Dhani Ram were regularized. After having rendered 21 years of service on daily wage basis and 7 years, three months and 22 days on regular basis, husband of the petitioner retired from service on 31. 12.1999. In the year 2007, petitioner filed original application bearing No. 1344 of 2007, praying therein for grant of family pension after counting service rendered on daily wage basis equivalent to half of regular service. Vide order dated 20.11.2007 Annexure P­5, the Erstwhile Tribunal allowed the aforesaid original application and directed respondents to take into account 50% of the daily wage service rendered by the husband of the petitioner, namely, late Sh. Dhani Ram, while calculating his qualifying service for entitlement of pension, but no action, if any, ever came to be taken at the behest of respondent No.2 to implement aforesaid direction passed by Erstwhile Tribunal. As aforesaid judgment dated 20.11.2017 passed in the case of the petitioner was never challenged in the Civil Court of law, as such, same attained finality. As aforesaid judgment dated 20.11.2017 passed in the case of the petitioner was never challenged in the Civil Court of law, as such, same attained finality. Though issue of counting of 50% daily wage service rendered prior to regularization while calculating qualifying service for entitlement of pension came to be decided by Division Bench of this Court, wherein Division Bench of this Court concurred with the findings of learned Tribunal that 50% of daily wage service rendered by an employee is required to be taken into consideration while calculating qualifying service for entitlement of pension but since respondent­State preferred SLP and matter was remanded back to Division Bench of this Court, no steps, if any, were taken by respondents in terms of judgment dated 20.11.2007 passed in OA No. 1344 of 2004 titled as Ram Dei vs. H.P. State Electricity Board Limited. After remand order passed by Hon’ble Apex Court, Division Bench of this Court allowed the writ petition filed by the State holding that the decision of Central Government to count half of daily wage service while calculating qualifying service for pension has not been adopted by the State Government and as such, the State is not bound to follow the same. 3. In the meantime, Hon’ble Apex Court in case titled as Sunder Singh vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, Civil Appeal No. 6309 of 2017, passed on 08th March, 2018 directed that w.e.f. 01.01.2018, appellant therein or other similarly placed Class­IV employees, shall be entitled to pension if they have been duly regularized and have completed total eligible service for more than ten years. While passing aforesaid direction, Hon’ble Apex Court further clarified that daily wage service of five years will be treated equal to one year of regular service for pension and if it is found that their services are more than eight years but less ten years, their service will be reckoned as ten years. After passing of aforesaid judgment in Sunder Singh’s case, petitioner again approached Erstwhile Tribunal by way of Original Application bearing No. 6285 of 2018, praying therein to extend the benefit of judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in Sunder Singh’s case (Supra). 4. Vide order dated 26.10.2018, erstwhile Administrative Tribunal (Annexure P­1) directed the respondents to consider and decide the case of petitioner afresh in light of Sunder Singh’s Judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex Court. 4. Vide order dated 26.10.2018, erstwhile Administrative Tribunal (Annexure P­1) directed the respondents to consider and decide the case of petitioner afresh in light of Sunder Singh’s Judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex Court. However, respondents again rejected the case of the petitioner vide order dated 26. 10.2020 passed by the Executive Director, H.P. State Electricity Board Limited (Annexure P­3) on the ground that judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in Sunder Singh’s case cannot be made applicable in the case of the petitioner as he was not party and judgment passed in Sunder Singh’s case applies to those daily wage employees, whose services were regularized in terms of judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in Mool Raj Upadhyaya’s case. 5. In the aforesaid background, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein to set aside aforesaid order dated 26.10.2022 and to issue directions to respondents to count 50% of the daily wage service rendered by her husband prior to his regularization in terms of judgment passed in Sunder Singh’s case (supra), wherein, it has been held that five years daily wage service would be counted as equal to one year qualifying service and if it is so, service of late husband of the petitioner, who had rendered seven years three months 17 days service prior to his retirement on regular basis would become more than 8 years and if it is so, period of eight years would be reckoned as ten years and in that eventuality, petitioner becomes entitled to family pension w.e.f. 01.01. 2018. 6. Having heard learned counsel representing the parties and perused material made available, especially the reasons assigned in the order impugned in the instant proceedings, this Court finds that facts as noticed hereinabove are not in dispute, rather stand admitted. Sh. Anil God, learned counsel representing the respondent while admitting factual matrix, as has been noticed above, submitted that since services of late husband of the petitioner was not regularized in terms of judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Mool Raj Upadhyaya’s case and he was not party in Sunder Singh’s case, no benefit can be extended to him in terms of judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in Sunder Singh’s case. However, having carefully perused judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in Sunder Singh’s case (Annexure P­2), this Court finds force in the submissions of Sh. However, having carefully perused judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in Sunder Singh’s case (Annexure P­2), this Court finds force in the submissions of Sh. M.L. Sharma, learned counsel representing the petitioner that Hon’ble Apex Court, while deciding Sunder Singh’s case has very clearly and cautiously directed that w.e.f. 01.01.2018, appellant or other similar placed class­IV employees will be entitled to pension if they have been duly regularized and have completed total eligible service of more than ten years. It is quite apparent from the direction issued by Apex Court in Sunder Singh’s case (supra) that directions contained in aforesaid order are not only applicable to appellant in that case or parties in that case, but to all other similarly placed class­IV employees, whose services were regularized and they had completed total eligible service of more than 10 years. Once, it is not in dispute that service of late husband of the petitioner was regularized on his having completed ten years of service and after his regulation, he served the department for more than 7 years, he is entitled to be extended benefit as granted by Hon’ble Apex Court in Sunder Singh’s case (supra) to all class­IV employees. 7. In aforesaid judgment, Hon’ble Apex Court while holding all class­IV employees entitled to pension if they have been regularized and have completed total eligible services for more than 10 years have further clarified that daily wage service of five years will be treated equal to one year of regular service for pension and if on the basis of same it is found that their services are more than 8 years but less than ten years, their services will be reckoned as 10 years. Relevant para of aforesaid judgment passed by the Appellate Court Sunder Singh’s case is reproduced as under:­ “Accordingly, we direct that w.e.f. 1.1.2018, the appellants or other similarly placed Class­IV 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”. 8. 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”. 8. After passing of judgment in Sunder Singh’s case (Supra), similar question again fell for the consideration of Hon’ble Apex Court in case titled as Balo Devi vs. State of H.P. & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 4792 of 2022, decided on 18th July, 2022, wherein Hon’ble Apex Court again clarified that intent of the Court while passing judgment in Sunder Singh’s case was quite clear that first service rendered as a regular employees will be computed and thereafter at the rate of one year regular service for every five years of service as daily wage rendered by the employee be added. Hon’ble Apex Court in Balo Devi’s case clarified that if both the components of regular service as well as weightage to daily wage service are taken into consideration and thereafter total service come up to eight years but less than 10 years then that shall be reckoned as ten years. Relevant paras of aforesaid judgment read as under:­ “The basic question raised in the instant matter is about the entitlement of the husband of the appellant and after his death, the entitlement of the appellant to pension. The matter concerning the rights of a person who had rendered service on daily wage­basis in the State of Himachal Pradesh and whether such daily wage service could be counted for pension was considered by this Court in Civil Appeal No.6309 of 2017 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.34038 of 2012). The order passed by this Court on 08.03.2018 disposing of said matter may be extracted hereunder for facility. "1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The appellants represent class of Class­IV employees who were recruited initially as daily wagers such as Peon/Chowkidar/Sweeper/Farrash/ Malis/Rasoia Their services, etc. thereafter, were regularized pursuant to the decision of this Court in Mool Raj Upadhyaya Vs. State of H.P. and Ors. 1994 Supp(2) SCC 316 under a Scheme Regularization was after 10 years of service. 3. It is undisputed that the post­regularization. An employee who had served for 10 years is entitled to pension for which work charge service is counted. thereafter, were regularized pursuant to the decision of this Court in Mool Raj Upadhyaya Vs. State of H.P. and Ors. 1994 Supp(2) SCC 316 under a Scheme Regularization was after 10 years of service. 3. It is undisputed that the post­regularization. An employee who had served for 10 years is entitled to pension for which work charge service is counted. Earlier, in terms of O.M. dated 14.05.1998, 50% of daily­wage service was also counted for pension after regularization but the rules have undergone change. 4. Since the appellants have not rendered the requisite 10 years of service they have been denied pension. 5. Even though strictly construing the Rules, the appellants may not be entitled to pension. However, reading the rules consistent with Articles 14, 38 and 39 of the Constitution of India and applying the doctrine of proportionate equality, we are of the view that they are entitled to weightage of service rendered as daily wagers towards regular service for the purpose of pension. 6. Accordingly, we direct that w.e.f 01.01.2018, the appellants or other similarly placed Class­IV 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. 7. The appeal as well as special leave petitions are disposed of in above terms”. Mr. M.C. Dhingra, learned advocate appearing for the appellant submits that the length of service rendered by the husband of the appellant as regular employee was six years and two months and prior to such regularization he had rendered ten years of service as a daily wager. Mr. M.C. Dhingra, learned advocate appearing for the appellant submits that the length of service rendered by the husband of the appellant as regular employee was six years and two months and prior to such regularization he had rendered ten years of service as a daily wager. It is submitted that in terms of the direction issued by this Court, his service of ten years as a daily wager would be equivalent of two years of regular service; and adding the component of two years of such deemed regular service to the actual regular service put in by the husband of the appellant, the resultant number would be 8.2; and by virtue of last sentence appearing in para 6 of the order, such service in excess of eight years but less than ten years had to be reckoned as ten years; and thus the husband of the appellant and after his death the appellant would be entitled to pension. On the other hand, according to Mr. P.S. Patwalia, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the state, if after giving benefit of one year of regular service for every completed five years as a daily wager, the resultant component were to cross ten years, only in such circumstances, the benefit as extended by this Court in its order could be made available. We find it difficult to accept the submission of Mr. Patwalia. If the submission is accepted, the last line of paragraph 6 would lose any significance or meaning. 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.” 9. (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.” 9. Consequently, in view of the detailed discussion made hereinabove, as well as law declared by Hon’ble Supreme Court, this Court has no hesitation to conclude that impugned order passed by respondent­Board (Annexure P­3), thereby rejecting the case of the petitioner for family pension is not tenable in the eye of law being totally contrary to the law as well facts of the case and as such, same is quashed and set aside. Respondent­Board is directed to give weightage of one year against five year service rendered by late husband-petitioner on daily wage basis for every five years and thereafter, add the same to regular service and if thereafter regular service of late husband­petitioner comes out to be more than eight years, the same is to be reckoned as ten years in terms of judgment passed in Sunder Singh’s case (supra). Since, in the case at hand, it is not in dispute that late husband of the petitioner had rendered regular service of seven years, three months, seventeen days after his having rendered 21 years service on daily wage, approximately four years are required to be added in the regular service on the analogy of judgment passed Hon’ble Apex Court in Sunder Singh’s case, and if it is so, petitioner becomes entitled for family pension. 10. In view of the above, respondents are directed to extend the benefit of family pension to the petitioner from due date i.e. 01.01.2018 alongwith consequential benefits. Since the petitioner had been waiting for her rightful claim since long, this Court hopes and trust and needful in terms of instant judgment shall be done expeditiously preferably within a period of six weeks, failing which, respondents would be liable to pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum from due date.