Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 35 (HP)

Kansu Ram v. State of H. P.

2025-01-03

RANJAN SHARMA

body2025
JUDGMENT : Ranjan Sharma, J. All the petitions enumerated at Sl. Nos.1 to 25 hereinabove, are de-linked from CWPOA No. 5137 of 2020, titled as Shobhni Devi Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others. 2. Since common question is involved and prayer(s) are identical, therefore, with the consent of parties, all these cases are taken up for adjudication and disposal together at this stage, in the interests of justice. 3. For convenience the above petitions are broadly characterized under Three Sub Heads i.e. Set No.: ‘A’ ‘B’ ‘C’. 3(i). Cases in Set-‘A’ relate to matters where Class-IV Employees are seeking pension w.e.f. 01.01.2018 in terms of the mandate of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Sunder Singh [Civil Appeal No.6309 of 2017], explained in case of Balo Devi [Civil Appeal No.479 of 2022] by counting the regular service and the component of regular service in lieu of daily wage service by granting pension in case such service comes to more than 8 years. 3(ii). Cases in Set-‘B’ relate to matters where Class-IV Employees are seeking pension w.e.f. 01.01.2018 in terms of the mandate of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in cases of Sunder Singh and Balo Devi and the deemed service of 2 years [beyond the age of 58 years upto the age of 60 years] in terms of the Full Bench judgment of this Court, in case of Baldev Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others, [CWP No. 2711 of 2017 decided on 22.02.2022]. 3(iii). Cases in Set–‘C’ relate to matters where Class-III Employees are seeking pension w.e.f. 01.01.2018 on the analogy as granted as Class-IV Employees, in terms of the mandate of this Court, in Roop Lal versus State of H.P. & Others [LPA No. 196 of 2022, decided on 11.10.2023]. CASES UNDER SET-‘A’: 4. Now, this Court proceeds to initially deal with cases under Set ‘A’. 4(i). As jointly agreed by Learned Counsel(s)for the parties, CWPOA No.913 of 2020, titled as Kansu Ram Versus The State of H.P. and others, is taken as the Lead Case for adjudication of all cases, under Set-‘A’ [supra]. SET–A: LEAD CASE: CLAIM FOR PENSION BY CLASS–IV EMPLOYEES BASED ON JUDGMENTS IN CASES OF SUNDER SINGH AND BALO DEVI GRANTING PENSION: 4(ii). As jointly agreed by Learned Counsel(s)for the parties, CWPOA No.913 of 2020, titled as Kansu Ram Versus The State of H.P. and others, is taken as the Lead Case for adjudication of all cases, under Set-‘A’ [supra]. SET–A: LEAD CASE: CLAIM FOR PENSION BY CLASS–IV EMPLOYEES BASED ON JUDGMENTS IN CASES OF SUNDER SINGH AND BALO DEVI GRANTING PENSION: 4(ii). Petitioner, Kansu Ram, has come up, before this Court, seeking the following prayer:- “That the respondents may be ordered to take into consideration the entire daily wage service rendered by the applicant to qualify for the pension and other pensionary benefits and he may be given pension and other retiral benefits from due date with all the benefits incidental thereof.” 4(iii). Factual matrix in the case of petitioner Kansu Ram in CWPOA No.913 of 2020, [earlier OA No. 7008 of 2014 filed before State Administrative Tribunal], as set out by Learned Vice Counsel is that he was engaged as Beldar on daily wage basis in I&PH Division Arki in the year 1993 and he was granted work charge status w.e.f. 24.12.2002, vide Office Order 07.01.2003, Annexure P-1. Petitioner superannuated from service on attaining the age of 58 years on 31.03.2007 but he was not granted pension on the ground that he was not having qualifying service of 10 years as required by norms. 4(iv). At this stage, Learned Vice Counsel submits that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the mandate of law passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Civil Appeal No.6309 of 2017, titled as Sunder Singh Versus The State of Himachal Pradesh alongwith connected matters, decided on 08.03.2018 and Civil Appeal No.4792 of 2022, titled as Balo Devi Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors., decided on 18.07.2022. Based on this, Learned Counsel(s) prays that the respondents may be directed to extend benefit of pension to the petitioner, by taking into account the actual regular service and the regular service arrived at by giving weightage of daily wage service and once the length of regular service comes out to be more than 8 years as per the mandate of law in cases of Sunder Singh and Balo Devi [supra] once the 8 years’ service shall be reckoned as 10 years and then, the petitioner becomes eligible and entitled for pension w.e.f 01.01.2018 onwards. STAND OF RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 3 IN REPLY: 4(v). STAND OF RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 3 IN REPLY: 4(v). Respondents No.1 and 3 have filed a Reply- Affidavit dated 31.05.2017, of Superintending Engineer, I&PH Circle, Shimla that the petitioner was conferred work charge status w.e.f. 01.01.2002 on completion of 10 years of service by respondent No.3-Executive Engineer, I&PH Division Arki, District Solan [HP] and he superannuated on attaining the age of 58 years on 31.03.2007. It is stated that instant petition has been filed after 9 years of retirement and the same suffers from delay and latches and is barred by limitation. 4(vi). In Para-1 of Preliminary Submissions and Para-6(iii) of reply on merits, it is averred that the petitioner is not entitled for pension as he has rendered only 4 years, 3 months and 8 days regular service vis-a-vis the requirement of 10 years of qualifying service, based on work charged and regular basis in terms of CCS [Pension] Rules, 1972. Moreover, the petitioner had not been appointed against any substantive post, rather he was engaged on muster-roll on daily wage basis and then on work charge and then on regular basis. In this backdrop, it is prayed that the instant petition, being devoid of any merit, may kindly be dismissed. STAND OF RESPONDENT NO.4 IN REPLY: 4(vii). Respondent No.4 filed a reply-affidavit dated 21.03.2017 of Deputy Accountant General [A] in the Office of Accountant General [A&E], Himachal Pradesh, with the stand that the petitioner superannuated from service on 31.03.2007 after rendering less than 10 years of service and therefore, as per Rule 49(1) of CCS [Pension] Rules, 1972 the petitioner is not entitled for pension. However, it is stated that as and when the Gratuity/Service Gratuity case is received, the same shall be dealt with in terms of the provisions of CCS [Pension] Rules, 1972. With the above submissions, it is prayed that the present petition qua respondent No.4, may kindly be dismissed. TABULAR CHART GIVING INCUMBENCY OF PETITIONER(S) IN CONNECTED CASES UNDER SET-‘A’: 4(viii). However, it is stated that as and when the Gratuity/Service Gratuity case is received, the same shall be dealt with in terms of the provisions of CCS [Pension] Rules, 1972. With the above submissions, it is prayed that the present petition qua respondent No.4, may kindly be dismissed. TABULAR CHART GIVING INCUMBENCY OF PETITIONER(S) IN CONNECTED CASES UNDER SET-‘A’: 4(viii). Though elaborated facts have been extracted from Lead Case [CWPOA No.913 of 2020, titled as Kansu Ram Versus The State of H.P. and others] but for convenience sake, since the subject matter and claim in other connected cases under ‘Set-A’ are similar; therefore, the Tabular Chart, detailing the Incumbency [i.e. date of engagement on daily wage basis, period of daily wage service, period of regular service, date of superannuation at the age of 58/60 years and the rejection orders, if any] of the petitioner in Lead Case and petitioners in other connected cases are reproduced herein below for ready reference:- Cases in Set-A covered by judgments passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sunder Singh and Balo Devi’s case: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 CWPOA/ CWP Numbers and name of petitioner Date of engagement on daily wage basis with 240 days and capacity Period of daily wage service Period of regular service Date of superannuation at the age of 58 years Claim for Pension covered by Judgments in Rejection orders, if any ( CWPOA No.913 of 2020 [Kansu Ram] Lead Case) 1993, Beldar [Class-IV], IPH Department 10 years from 1993 to 23.12.2002 4 years 3 months and 8 days, from 24.12.2002 to 31.03.2007 58 years, 31.03.2007 Sunder Singh & Balo Devi No rejection order CWP No.5435 of 2022 [Mohinder Chand] 1999, Class-IV, Ayurveda Department 10 years, 1 month and 16 days, from 1999 to 15.02.2009 9 years, 1 month and 17 days, from 16.02.2009 to 31.03.2018 60 years, 31.03.2018 Sunder Singh & Balo Devi No rejection order CWP No.5915 of 2022 [Gorkhu Ram] 1979, Chowkidar [Class-IV], IPH Department 15 years from 1979 to 01.01.1994 7 years, 2 month, from 01.01.1994 to 28.02.2001 58 years, 28.02.2001 Sunder Singh & Balo Devi Rejected vide communica tion dated 20.01.2020, Annexure P-2 CWP No.5918 of 2022 [Uttam Singh] 1991, Chowkidar [Class-IV], Jal Shakti Vibag 11 years from 1991 to 31.12.2002 9 years, 3 months from 01.01.2003 to 31.03.2012 - 31.03.2012 Sunder Singh & Balo Devi No rejection order CWP No.6471 of 2022 [Kalwati] Late husband of petitioner was engaged as Helper [Class-IV], IPH Department 11 years from 1985 to 31.12.1995 6 years, 7 months from 01.01.1996 to 31.07.2002 60 years, 31.07.2002 Sunder Singh & Balo Devi No rejection order CWP No.7905 of 2022 [Chand Ram] 01.01.1984, Beldar [Class- IV], Jal Shakti Vibag 10 years from 01.01.1984 to 31.12.1993 6 years, 8 months, from 01.01.1994 to 31.08.2000 60 years, 31.08.2000 Sunder Singh & Balo Devi No rejection order CWP No.8822 of 2023 [Asha Thakur] Late husband of petitioner was engaged as Animal Attendant [Class-IV], Forest Office [Wild Life] 10 years 01.01.1986 to 31.12.1995 6 years, 3 months from 01.01.1996 to 31.03.2003 - 31.03.2003 Sunder Singh & Balo Devi No rejection order CWP No.712 of 2024 [Nirmala Devi] 2005,Beldar [Class-IV], Jal Shakti Vibag 8 years from 2005 to 2013 10 years from 2013 to 31.12.2022 58 years, 31.12.2022 Sunder Singh & Balo Devi No rejection order CWP No.2533 of 2024 [Lori Devi] 02.11.1987, Part-Time Worker/Peon [Class-IV], Women & Child Development Department 17 years, 1 month, 11 days, from 1997 to 11.02.2014 9 years, 6 months, 12 days, from 12.02.2014 to 31.08.2023 60 years, 31.08.2023 Sunder Singh, Balo Devi No rejection order CWP No.3586 of 2024 [Ram Lal] 01.07.1988, Part-Time Class-IV, Ayurveda Department 17 years, 3 months, 9 days, as Part-Time Class-IV from 01.07.1988 to 31.12.2004 9 years, 4 months, from 01.01.2005 to 30.04.2014 - 30.04.2014 Sunder Singh & Balo Devi Rejected vide communica tion dated 17.11.2023, Annexure P-4 CWP No.4308 of 2024 [Roshan Lal] 1997, Part- Time basis, Revenue Chowkidar [Class-IV] and his services were converted into daily wages from 01.05.2007, O/o Collector- cum-DC, Bilaspur 10 years, 4 months as Part-Time basis from 1997 to 30.04.2007 and 8 years, 3 months, 14 days daily wage basis from 01.05.2007 to 14.10.2015 7 years, 1 month, from 15.10.2015 to 31.01.2023 60 years, 31.01.2023 Sunder Singh & Balo Devi No rejection order CWP No.6324 of 2024 [Manager] 1986, Helper [Class-IV] daily wage basis, Jal Shakti Vibag 10 years of daily wage basis from 1986 to 31.12.1995 and thereafter 1 year, 20 days as work charge status from 01.01.1996 to 20.07.1997 5 years, 7 months, 11 days, from 21.07.1997 to 28.02.2003 58 years, 28.02.2003 Sunder Singh & Balo Devi Rejected vide communica tion dated 22.12.2019, Annexure P-1 CWP No.8957 of 2024 [Salochna Devi] 01.09.2001, Chowkidar [Class-IV], Jal Shakti Vibag 11 years, 3 months, 5 days, 01.09.2001 to 05.12.2012 8 years, 5 months, 25 days, from 06.12.2012 to 31.05.2021 58 years, 31.05.2021 Sunder Singh & Balo Devi No rejection order MANDATE OF LAW ON PENSION IN CASES OF SUNDER SINGH AND BALO DEVI: 5. In order to appreciate the claims and rival contentions, it is necessary to have a recap of the mandate of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Civil Appeal No.6309 of 2017 titled as Sunder Singh Versus The State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. alongwith connected matters, decided on 08.03.2018, based on the doctrine of proportionate equality the Class-IV Employees have been held entitled for pension w.e.f. 01.01.2018, by taking into account the regular service and weightage of daily waged service by treating it as regular service, in the following terms:- “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 Class-IV employees will be entitled to pension if they have been duly regular- ized 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.” 5(i). The judgment in the case of Sunder Singh [supra] was further explained by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.4792 of 2022, titled as Balo Devi Versus State of H.P. & Ors., decided on 18.07.2022, in the following terms:- “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. In the circumstances, we accept the contention raised by Mr. (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. In the circumstances, we accept the contention raised by Mr. M.C. Dhingra, and set aside the order dated 13.05.2019 reject- ing the claim made by the appellant. Allowing the writ petition preferred by the appellant, it is declared that the husband of the appellant and after the death, the appellant would be entitled to pension as claimed. All the arrears in that behalf shall be made over to the appellant within eight weeks from today.” ANALYSIS OF CLAIM FOR PENSION FOR CLASS-IV RETIREES: 6. Taking into account the mandate of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Sunder Singh, which was further explained in the case of Balo Devi [supra], this Court is of the considered view that, in case, the length of service based on regular service and component of regular service arrived at by giving weightage of daily waged service comes to more than 8 years but less than 10 years then also, such service shall be reckoned as 10 years which shall entitle an employee for pension. Based on the aforesaid mandate of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the petitioner [i.e. Class-IV Retired Employee] in Lead Case and other connected cases are held entitled to pension w.e.f. 01.01.2018 for the following reasons:- 6(i). Denial of pension to the petitioners in case under Set-‘A’ [being Class-IV Retired Employees] w.e.f. 01.01.2018 is contrary to the mandate of law of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sunder Singh and Balo Devi [supra]. 6(ii). Denial of pension to the petitioners shall result in defeating the “benefit of the doctrine of proportionate equality” which was consistent with the spirit of Articles 14, 38 and 39 of the Constitution of India. 6(iii). 6(ii). Denial of pension to the petitioners shall result in defeating the “benefit of the doctrine of proportionate equality” which was consistent with the spirit of Articles 14, 38 and 39 of the Constitution of India. 6(iii). Rejection orders passed by respondents in denying pension in connected case i.e. orders dated 20.01.2020, Annexure A-2 in CWP No.5915 of 2020, titled as Gorkhu Ram Versus State of H.P. and others] and rejection orders dated 17.11.2013, Annexure P-4 in CWP No.3586 of 2024, titled as Ram Lal Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others and rejection orders dated 22.11.2019, Annexure P-1, in CWP No.6324 of 2024, titled as Manager Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others; denying pension due to non-completion of 10 years of qualifying service [based on work charge and regular service] and in view of the judgment in case of Ram Lal Versus State of H.P., CWP No.180 of 2001, is of no assistance to the State Authorities; when, the Hon’ble Supreme in cases of Sunder Singh and Balo Devi [supra] has held that the retired Class-IV Employees were eligible and entitled for pension w.e.f. 01.01.2018, if the length of service based on actual regular service and regular service arrived by giving weightage for daily waged service comes to a level of more than 8 years of regular service and by reckoning this 8 years as 10 years, which stand fulfilled by the petitioners, herein. 6(iv). The plea of Respondents that pension cannot be granted without completing 10 years of qualifying service in terms of Rule 49(1) of CCS [Pension] Rules. This plea is no longer res-integra, in the light of the mandate of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sunder Singh and Balo Devi’s cases, holding that based on the doctrine of proportionate equality, in case, the length of service of an employee comes to a level of more than 8 years but less than 10 years, then also, “such service shall be reckoned as 10 years”. Thus, the objection of Respondents in Reply-Affidavit/rejection orders being contrary to law is set aside. 6(v). Plea of the Respondents regarding delay and laches is misconceived. Eligibility and entitlement for pension w.e.f. 01.01.2018 is a recurring cause every month till day and therefore, the plea of the State Authorities of delay and laches is unsustainable. 7. As a sequel to above, this Court proceeds to deal with cases under Set-‘B’, hereinunder. 7(i). 6(v). Plea of the Respondents regarding delay and laches is misconceived. Eligibility and entitlement for pension w.e.f. 01.01.2018 is a recurring cause every month till day and therefore, the plea of the State Authorities of delay and laches is unsustainable. 7. As a sequel to above, this Court proceeds to deal with cases under Set-‘B’, hereinunder. 7(i). As jointly agreed by the Learned Counsel(s) for the parties, CWP No.9176 of 2024, titled as Ram Singh Versus State of H.P. and others is taken as the Lead Case, for adjudication of all cases under Set-‘B’ [supra]. SET–B: LEAD CASE REGARDING CLAIM FOR PENSION BY CLASS–IV EMPLOYEES BASED ON JUDGMENTS IN CASES OF SUNDER SINGH, BALO DEVI AND BALDEV GRANTING PENSION: 7(ii). Petitioner Ram Singh, has come up, before this Court, seeking the following prayer:- “13(i) That direction may kindly be issued to the respondent department to grant the benefit of two years by considering him deemed retired from Govt. service on dated 31.12.2017 instead of 31.12.2015 as per the judgment passed this Hon’ble Court in CWP No.2711/2017 titled as Baldev v/s State of HP and Others. (ii) That the directions may kindly be issued to the respondents to pay the pension to the petitioner from the due date keeping in view the judgment passed in Civil Appeal No.6309/2017 titled as Sunder Singh Versus The State of H.P. as well as Civil Appeal No.4792/2022 titled as Balo Devi Versus State of H.P. in the interest of justice. (iii) That the respondents may kindly be directed to pay the pension to the petitioner with interest @ 12 % per annum.” 7(iii). Precisely, the case of petitioner Ram Singh in CWP No.9176 of 2024, as set out by Learned Counsel, is that the petitioner was engaged as Beldar [Class-IV] on daily wage basis in the year 1994 and his services were regularized on 31.12.2008. He superannuated on attaining the age of 58 years on 31.12.2015, yet the petitioner is claiming benefit of deemed service of two years i.e. beyond the age of 58 years upto the age of 60 years [till 31.12.2017] notionally for working out the pension w.e.f. 01.01.2018. 7(iv). He superannuated on attaining the age of 58 years on 31.12.2015, yet the petitioner is claiming benefit of deemed service of two years i.e. beyond the age of 58 years upto the age of 60 years [till 31.12.2017] notionally for working out the pension w.e.f. 01.01.2018. 7(iv). At this stage, Learned Counsel submits that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the mandate of law passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in cases of Sunder Singh, Balo Devi and the Full Bench judgment of this Court in CWP No.2711 of 2017, Baldev Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others, decided on 22.02.2022. Learned counsel prayed that the respondents may be directed to grant pension to the petitioner by taking into account the entire length of regular service and component of regular service by giving weightage of daily waged service and also the benefit of two years of deemed regular service beyond the age of 58 years upto the age of 60 years to the petitioner. STAND OF STATE AUTHORITIES: 7(v). In Reply-Affidavit dated 16.11.2024 of Superintending Engineer, HPPWD Circle, Jogindernagar, the stand of State Authorities is that even after counting two years of deemed service beyond the age of 58 years upto the age of 60 years as per the judgment in case of Baldev [supra], the petitioner has rendered 9 years and 1 month and 2 days’ service which is less than 10 years as required by CCS [Pension] Rules, and therefore, pension cannot be granted. It is further averred that benefit of pension is admissible to those daily wagers who were engaged prior to 31.12.1993 and not to others. TABULAR CHART GIVING INCUMBENCY OF PETITIONER(S) IN CONNECTED CASES UNDER SET-‘B’: 7(vi). It is further averred that benefit of pension is admissible to those daily wagers who were engaged prior to 31.12.1993 and not to others. TABULAR CHART GIVING INCUMBENCY OF PETITIONER(S) IN CONNECTED CASES UNDER SET-‘B’: 7(vi). Though the facts from Lead Case [CWP No.9176 of 2024, titled as Ram Singh Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others] have been enumerated hereinabove, yet, since the subject matter and claim in other connected cases under ‘Set-B’ are similar; therefore, for ready reference, a Tabular Chart, giving the Incumbency Details [i.e. date of engagement on daily wage basis, period of daily wage service, period of regular service, date of superannuation at the age of 58/60 years and the rejection orders, if any] of petitioners in other connected cases are mentioned hereinbelow:- Cases in Set-B covered by the judgments passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sunder Singh, Balo Devi and one Full Bench of this Court in Baldev’s case: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Sl. No. CWPOA/ CWP Numbers and name of petitioner Date of engagement on daily wage basis with 240 days and capacity Period of daily wage service Period of regular service Date of superannuation at the age of 58 years Claim for Pension covered by Judgments in Rejection orders, if any 1 ( CWP No.9176 of 2024 [Ram Singh] Lead Case) 1994,Beldar [Class-IV], HPPWD [B & R] 15 years from 1994 to 31.12.2008 7 years from 30.12.2008 to 31.12.2015 58 years, 31.12.2015 Sunder Singh, Balo Devi & Baldev No rejection order 2 CWP No.899 of 2024 [Gian Chand] 1999, Worker [Class-IV], Ayurveda Department 10 years 2 months and 1 day, from 1999 to 01.03.2009 8 years, 2 months from 02.03.2009 to 30.04.2018 60 years, 30.04.2018 Sunder Singh, Balo Devi & Baldev Singh Rejected vide Order dated 05.12.2022, Annexure P-4 3 CWP No.5933 of 2024 [Painu Ram} 04.12.1998, Peon [Class-IV], Planning Department, H.P. Secretariat 9 years, 8 months, 28 days, from 04.12.1998 to 31.08.2008 8 years, 2 months from 01.09.2008 to 28.02.2017 58 years, 28.02.2017 Sunder Singh, Balo Devi & Baldev No rejection order 4 CWP No.6316 of 2024 [Gopal Singh} 1991, as Part- Time basis till 2003 and thereafter from 2004 till 31.12.2011 as daily wage basis, O/o DC Mandi 12 years, as Part-Time Basis, 1991 to 2003, 8 years daily wage basis from 2004 to 31.12.2011 8 years, 4 months, from 01.01.2012 to 30.04.2020 - 30.04.2020 Sunder Singh, Balo Devi & Baldev Rejected vide communicatio n dated 20.09.2023, Annexure P-6 5 CWP No.9188 of 2024 [Shyam Singh] 1996, Beldar [Class-IV], HPPWD 12 years, 10 months, 23 days, from 1996 to 23.11.2008 5 years, 4 months, 7 days, from 24.11.2008 to 31.03.2014 58 years, 31.03.2014 Sunder Singh, Balo Devi & Baldev No rejection order 6 CWP No.9208 of 2024 [Budhi Devi] 1992, Beldar [Class-IV], HPPWD 14 years, 3 months from 1992 to 31.03.2006 5 years, 9 months, from 01.04.2006 to 31.12.2012 58 years, 31.12.2012 Sunder Singh, Balo Devi & Baldev No rejection order 7 CWP No.9599 of 2024 [Narvada Devi] 2003, Beldar [Class-IV], HPPWD 12 years, 7 months, 17 days, from 2003 to 17.08.2015 6 years, 1 month, 14 days, from 18.08.2015 to 31.01.2021 58 years, 31.01.2021 Sunder Singh, Balo Devi & Baldev No rejection order 8 CWP No.9601 of 2024 [Khem Singh] 2000, Beldar [Class-IV], HPPWD 14 years, 7 months, 17 days, from 2000 to 17.08.2015 2 years, 4 months, 14 days, from 18.08.2015 to 31.12.2017 58 years, 31.12.2017 Sunder Singh, Balo Devi & Baldev No rejection order 9 CWP No.9602 of 2024 [Tek Chand January, 1999, Beldar [Class-IV], HPPWD 11 years, 4 months, 10 days, from January 1999 to 10.05.2010 5 years, 3 months, 21 days, from 11.05.2010 to 31.03.2015 58 years, 31.03.2015 Sunder Singh, Balo Devi & Baldev No rejection order MANDATE OF LAW ON PENSION IN CASES OF SUNDER SINGH, BALO DEVI AND BALDEV: 8. In order to appreciate the claims and rival contentions, it is necessary to have recap of the mandate of law in cases of Sunder Singh and Balo Devi, which is already reproduced in Paras 5 and 5(i) [supra]. In addition, this Court takes note of the mandate of the judgment passed by the Full Bench of this Court in Civil Writ Petition No.2711 of 2017, titled as Baldev Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others, decided on 22.02.2022. The operative part of the judgment in case of Baldev reads as under:- “6(ii). Age of Continuance in Service:- 6(ii)(a). In terms of 2001 amendment of F.R. 56(e), such of the Class-IV employees, who were engaged on daily wage basis prior to 10.05.2001 and regularized also prior to 10.05.2001, are entitled to continue to serve till the age of 60 years. This position is acknowledged in the judgments rendered in Bar Chand as well as Chuni Lal’s cases, supra. 6(ii)(b). Such of the Class-IV employees, who were engaged on daily wage basis prior to 10.05.2001 and regularized after 10.05.2001 were not given the benefit of continuation till the age of 60 years in Chuni Lal’s case. The judgment in Chuni Lal’s case was based upon the interpretation of F.R. 56(e), as amended by the respondents- State vide notification dated 10.05.2001. 6(ii)(c). In terms of the State notification dated 21.02.2018 carrying out further amendment in F.R. 56(e), with effect from 21.02.2018, all daily wagers appointed prior to 10.05.2001 and regularized on or after 10.05.2001 are to continue to serve till the age of 60 years. This amendment is post the decisions rendered in Bar Chand and Chuni Lal’s cases, supra and has not been noticed in the reference order dated 28.12.2019. While affirming the judgment of ld. Single Judge in Gian Singh’s case, ld. Division Bench though did not notice Chuni Lal’s judgment but held that writ petitioner’s date of regularisation was prior to 10.5.2001 therefore reduced age of 58 years introduced in 2001 amendment would not be applicable to him. 7. There is now no confusion regarding employees falling in para 6(ii)(a) above. These employees can continue to serve till they attain the age of 60 years. However, an anomalous situation has developed amongst the employees falling in para 6(ii)(b) & 6(ii)(c). 7. There is now no confusion regarding employees falling in para 6(ii)(a) above. These employees can continue to serve till they attain the age of 60 years. However, an anomalous situation has developed amongst the employees falling in para 6(ii)(b) & 6(ii)(c). The employees falling in above para 6(ii)(b) and 6(ii)(c) for all practical purposes belong to the same category and are similarly situated. Both sets of employees were engaged on daily wage basis prior to 10.05.2001 and regularized after 10.05.2001. Such of the employees engaged on daily wage basis prior to 10.05.2001 and regularized after 10.05.2001, if were in service on 21.02.2018, will continue to serve till they attain the age of 60 years. On the other hand, such of the employees, who were engaged on daily wage basis prior to 10.05.2001 and regularized after 10.05.2001, but have retired before the issuance of notification dated 21.02.2018, will not get the benefit of notification dated 21.02.2018. This to our mind is wholly discriminatory. Similarly situated employees are being treated differently. The employees, who were engaged on daily wage basis prior to 10.05.2001 and regularized after 10.05.2001, constitute one homogenous class. Differential treatment to the employees falling in same homogenous class is impermissible. In fact, amendment carried out in F.R. 56(e) on 21.02.2018 suggests that the date of regularization will have no impact upon the superannuation age. Date of engagement is the determinative factor. If a daily wager is engaged prior to 10.05.2021, then he is entitled to serve till 60 years of age irrespective of date of his regularization. This was held so in Bar Chand’s case, decided on 21.10.2010. However, at the time of decision in Bar Chand’s case, the amendment dated 21.02.2018 had not been carried out in F.R. 56(e). Therefore, though later judgment in Chuni Lal’s case dated 22.11.2011, holding the decision in Bar Chand’s case as per incuriam cannot be faulted as it was based upon strict interpretation of F.R.56(e) as amended by the State at that time. However, in view of subsequent amendment of F.R. 56(e) on 21.02.2018 in the interregnum, situation has undergone further change. Reference made to the larger Bench is not only to decide about the inconsistency in the decisions referred therein, but also to put at rest related issues coming or likely to arise before different benches. Therefore, we hold that:- (i). However, in view of subsequent amendment of F.R. 56(e) on 21.02.2018 in the interregnum, situation has undergone further change. Reference made to the larger Bench is not only to decide about the inconsistency in the decisions referred therein, but also to put at rest related issues coming or likely to arise before different benches. Therefore, we hold that:- (i). There is an apparent inconsistency or conflict between the decisions referred to in the reference order dated 28.12.2019, which lies in a very narrow compass, as noticed in para 6(i) above. In Chuni Lal’s case, the decision rendered in Bar Chand’s case was held to be per incuriam. The decision in Chuni Lal’s case was based upon interpretation of F.R. 56(e) as it existed in the State at that time. But the judgment delivered in Tara Chand’s case did not notice the decision in Chuni Lal’s case. The judgment in Gian Singh’s case in respect of continuation in service was based upon the verdict in Tara Chand’s case. In both these judgments, learned Single Judges did not notice the judgment delivered in Chuni Lal’s case. In Letters patent appeal, the Division Bench while affirming the judgment passed by the ld. Single Judge in Gian Singh’s case though did not notice the judgment rendered in Chuni Lal’s case however the amendment dated 10.5.2001 reducing the superannuation age from 60 to 58 years was held to be not applicable to the writ petitioner, who was held entitled for regularisation prior to 10.5.2001. (ii). Inconsistency between Bar Chand and Chuni Lal now stands, not just resolved, but rather dissolved, in view of notification dated 21.02.2018 amending F.R. 56(e), issued by the State, which has now reinforced and reiterated what was held in Bar Chand’s case, i.e. date of regularization of a class IV daily wager whether prior or after 10.05.2001, will make no difference to the age of his continuing in service. It is the date of engagement, which is the decisive factor. If date of engagement/appointment is prior to 10.05.2001, the Class-IV employee will continue to serve till 60 years of age. In case, it is later than 10.05.2001, then restriction in age upto 58 years will apply. (iii). There cannot be any discrimination amongst similarly situated Class-IV employees belonging to one homogenous class. If date of engagement/appointment is prior to 10.05.2001, the Class-IV employee will continue to serve till 60 years of age. In case, it is later than 10.05.2001, then restriction in age upto 58 years will apply. (iii). There cannot be any discrimination amongst similarly situated Class-IV employees belonging to one homogenous class. Therefore the retirement date, of such of those employees, who had been engaged on daily wage basis prior to 10.05.2001, but regularized after 10.05.2001 and have actually been retired prior to the issuance of notification dated 21.02.2018 at the age of 58 years, shall be deemed to be the date when they otherwise attained the age of 60 years. Since these employees have not actually worked beyond the age of 58 years, therefore, they will not be entitled to the actual monetary benefits of wages/ salary etc. for the period of service from the date of their actual retirement till deemed dates of their retirement. However, they will be entitled to notional fixation of their pay for the period in question for working out their payable pension and payment of consequential arrears of pension accordingly.” ANALYSIS ON CLAIM FOR PENSION FOR CLASS-IV RETIREES: 9. Taking into account the mandate of Full Bench of this Court in case of Baldev [supra], once the services of petitioner in lead case CWP No. 9176 of 2024 comes out to be more than 8 years then also such period is to be reckoned as 10 years, after counting two years’ service beyond the age of 58 years to 60 years then, the petitioner in Lead Case having rendered 9 years 1 month [i.e. more than 8 years’ service] is eligible by reckoning such service to be 10 years, entitling the petitioner for pension w.e.f. 01.01.2018, for the following reasons:- 9(i). Admittedly, once the petitioners were engaged on daily wage basis prior to 10.05.2001 and were regularized after 10.05.2001, therefore, the petitioners are entitled for continuance in service, in terms of Notification dated 21.02.2018 as explained in case of Baldev [supra] upto the age of 60 years. Even if, the employees who had superannuated at the age of 58 years had not worked upto the age of 60 years such employees have also been held entitled for notional fixation of pay for working out their payable pension including arrears of pension. 9(ii). Even if, the employees who had superannuated at the age of 58 years had not worked upto the age of 60 years such employees have also been held entitled for notional fixation of pay for working out their payable pension including arrears of pension. 9(ii). Denial of pension to the petitioners in cases under Set-‘B’ w.e.f. 01.01.2018 on the basis of actual regular service and component of regular service arrived at by giving weightage of daily waged service and two years of deemed service beyond 58 years to 60 years is violative of the mandate of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Sunder Singh as explained in Balo Devi’s case and the Full Bench judgment of this Court in case of Baldev [supra]. 9(iii). Right to pension based on mandate of law, supra, comes within the ambit of property under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India. Deprivation of pension which is a property, without any sanction of law is impermissible. 9(iv). Deprivation of pension without prior notice, without giving personal hearing is arbitrary, unreasonable and the deprivation, which visits the petitioners with civil consequences is violative of Articles14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Deprivation or denial or withholding of pension to the petitioners despite having been eligible and entitled for pension w.e.f. 01.01.2018 as per mandate of law, in the cases of Sunder Singh, Balo Devi and Baldev [supra] amounts to penalizing petitioners by depriving them of their legal entitlement is uncalled for and therefore, the State action in denying pension needs to be interdicted. Ordered accordingly. 9(v). Plea of the State Authorities in the Reply- Affidavit that as per judgments in Sunder Singh and Balo Devi the pension will be admissible to those incumbents who were engaged as Class-IV before 31.12.1993. The above plea in the Reply-Affidavit is misconceived. Once the benefit of pension w.e.f. 01.01.2018 has been granted to Class-IV Employees without any distinction, based on date of engagement or date of entry as daily wager [prior to 31.12.1993] then, the artificial distinction which is now sought to be carved out in Reply-Affidavit that pension is admissible to those daily wagers who were engaged before 31.12.1993 amounts to carving out a class within one homogenous class of Class-IV Employees, without any rationale and in these circumstances, this plea is declared, illegal. Moreover, the date of entry-engagement as daily wager cannot form basis for denying pension, when, the pension is payable under the CCS [Pension] Rules and the mandate of law based on principle of proportionate equality under Articles 14, 38 and 39 of the Constitution of India, based on the length of service, based on actual regular service and component of regular service arrived at by giving weightage for daily waged service and deemed regular service of two years beyond age of 58 years to 60 years and if such service works out to be more than 8 years then this service of 8 years is to be reckoned as 10 years, in terms of the law, in cases of Sunder Singh, Balo Devi and Baldev [supra] entitling the petitioner herein for pension w.e.f. 01.01.2018. 9(vi). Denial of pension is vitiated by non- application of mind as illegal when this Court takes judicial notice of the fact that the State Government had restored the Old Pension Scheme, vide Office Memorandum dated 17th January, 2023 followed by Office Memorandum dated 4th May, 2023. On query by this Court, the re-introduction/revival of Old Pension Scheme is not disputed by Learned State Counsel also. In these circumstances, the petitioners in cases under Set-‘B’ are held eligible and entitled for pension w.e.f. 01.01.2018. 10. Likewise, this Court proceeds to deal with cases under Set ‘C’ as under. 10(i). As jointly agreed by the Learned Counsel(s) for the parties, CWP No.8524 of 2023, titled as Kasho Devi Versus State of H.P. and others is taken as Lead Case, for adjudication of cases under Set-‘C’. SET–‘C’: LEAD CASE REGARDING CLAIM FOR PENSION BY CLASS–III EMPLOYEES BASED ON JUDGMENT IN ROOP LAL GRANTING PENSION: 10(ii). Petitioner Kasho Devi, has come up, before this Court, seeking the following prayer:- “That Annexure P-2 may be set aside/ quashed and the respondents may be ordered to pay family pension to the petitioner w.e.f. 1.1.2018 as per the law declared in Sunder Singh and Balo Devi’s cases with all benefits incidental thereof.” 10(iii). Petitioner Kasho Devi, has come up, before this Court, seeking the following prayer:- “That Annexure P-2 may be set aside/ quashed and the respondents may be ordered to pay family pension to the petitioner w.e.f. 1.1.2018 as per the law declared in Sunder Singh and Balo Devi’s cases with all benefits incidental thereof.” 10(iii). The case of petitioner Kasho Devi in CWP No.8524 of 2023, as set out by Learned Vice Counsel, is that late husband of petitioner-Tek Chand was engaged as a daily wage Fitter [Class-III] in the year 1984 and his services were regularized on and w.e.f. 01.01.1997 and her husband retired from service on 31.12.2005 after rendering more than 8 years’ service. He was deprived of pension, on the ground, that he did not have 10 years’ qualifying service to his credit. It is averred that the petitioner filed an Original Application No.1670 of 2018, before State Administrative Tribunal [now abolished], which was disposed of vide order dated 11.04.2018, in terms of the law laid down in the case of Sunder Singh; but the claim of petitioner was rejected vide Office Order dated 20.11.2018 [Annexure P-2], on the ground, that petitioner’s husband retired as Class-III and as per judgment in Sunder Singh pension is admissible to Class-IV Employees only. In above background of the facts, it has been prayed for quashing Office Order dated 20.11.2018 [Annexure P-2] with prayer for granting pension/ family pension to present petitioner w.e.f. 01.01.2018 alongwith other consequential benefits. 10(iv). At this stage, learned vice counsel submits that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the mandate of law passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in LPA No.196 of 2022, titled as Roop Lal Versus State of H.P. & Others, decided on 11.10.2023. Learned counsel prayed that the respondents may be directed to extend all pensionary/family pension w.e.f. 01.01.2018 to the petitioner. STAND OF RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 3-STATE IN REPLY: 10(v). Learned counsel prayed that the respondents may be directed to extend all pensionary/family pension w.e.f. 01.01.2018 to the petitioner. STAND OF RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 3-STATE IN REPLY: 10(v). Respondents No.1 and 3 filed a Reply-Affidavit dated 23.12.2023 of Superintending Engineer, Jal Shakti Circle, Dharampur, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh, by taking preliminary submissions that petitioner’s husband worked on daily wage basis and he was granted work charge status after completion of 10 years’ service w.e.f. 01.01.1997 and he superannuated on 31.12.2005 after having served for 9 years’ and 3 months regular service, which is less than required qualifying service of 10 years as per Rule 49 (1) of CCS [Pension] Rules. It is alleged that since the petitioner’s husband was a Fitter, which a Class-III post and therefore, the benefit of judgment in case of Sunder Singh which is applicable for Class-IV Employees cannot be given to petitioner’s husband. So far as the judgment in case of Roop Lal is concerned, it is alleged that SLP has been filed before the Hon’ble Apex Court, which is pending. In view of above facts, it is prayed that the petition may kindly be dismissed, being devoid of any merit. 10(vi). No reply on behalf of respondent No.4 has been filed. CONNECTED CASES UNDER SET-C [CLAIM FOR FAMILY PENSION]: 10(vii). Similarly, in CWP No.9106 of 2023, titled as Amri Devi Versus State of H.P. and others, late husband of petitioner was engaged as Work Inspector [Class-III] in the year 1992 in I&PH Division, Sarkaghat, District Mandi [HP] and his services were brought on work charge/regular establishment w.e.f. 01.01.2001 and he retired on 31.07.2009 on attaining the age of superannuation and, therefore, the petitioner prays that the respondents may be directed to pay family pension in terms of the mandate of law in the case of Roop Lal. Likewise, in CWP No.1367 of 2024, titled as Kaspi Dass Versus State of H.P. and others, petitioner was engaged as daily wages Fitter [Class-III] in the year 1984 and his services were regularized on 30.04.2001 and he retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.05.2001 and, therefore, the petitioner prays that the respondents may be directed to pension in terms of the mandate of law in the case of Roop Lal. TABULAR CHART GIVING INCUMBENCY OF PETITIONER(S) IN CONNECTED CASES UNDER SET-‘C’: 10(viii). TABULAR CHART GIVING INCUMBENCY OF PETITIONER(S) IN CONNECTED CASES UNDER SET-‘C’: 10(viii). Though facts from Lead Case [CWP No.8524 of 2023, titled as Kasho Devi Versus State of H.P. and others] have been given yet since the subject matter and claim in other connected cases under ‘Set-C’ are similar; therefore, the Tabular Chart, detailing the Incumbency [i.e. date of engagement on daily wage basis, period of daily wage service, period of regular service, date of superannuation at the age of 58/60 years and the rejection orders if any] of the petitioners in other connected cases is reproduced herein below:- Cases in Set-C covered by the judgment passed by Division Bench of this Court in Roop Lal’s case: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Sl. No. CWPOA/ CWP Numbers and name of petitioner Date of engagement on daily wage basis with 240 days and capacity Period of daily wage service Period of regular service Date of superannuation at the age of 58 years Claim for pension covered by judgment in Rejection orders, if any 1 CWP No.8524 of 2023 [Kasho Devi] Late husband of petitioner was engaged as Fitter in the 1984, [Class-III], IPH Department 13 years from 1984 to 30.12.1996 9 years from 01.01.1997 to 31.12.2005 - 31.12.2005 [Roop Lal LPA No.196 of 2022] Rejected vide Office Order dated 20.11.2018, Annexure P-2. 2 CWP No.1367 of 2024 [Kaspi Dass] 1984, Fitter, [Class-III], HPPWD [Mechanical] 10 years from 1984 to 31.12.1993 7 years, 5 months from 01.01.1994 to 31.05.2001 60 years, 31.05.2001, despite the fact that the petitioner is Class-III employee. Roop Lal Rejected vide communicat ion dated 07.02.2013, Annexure P-2 [colly] 3 CWP No.9106 of 2023 [Amri Devi] Late husband of petitioner was engaged as Work Inspector [Class-III], IPH Department 11 years from 1992 to 31.12.2000 8 years, 7 months from 01.01.2001 to 31.07.2009 58 years, 31.07.2009 Roop Lal No rejection order MANDATE OF LAW AND ANALYSIS: WITH RESPECT TO CASES IN SET ‘C’ I.E. CLAIM FOR PENSION AS PER JUDGMENT IN CASE OF ROOP LAL: 11. Taking into account the claims and rival contentions, this Court is of the considered view that the cases governed by Set ‘C’ i.e. claim for Class-III employees for pension in terms of the judgment of Division Bench of this Court in LPA No.196 of 2022, titled as Roop Lal Versus State of H.P. & Others, decided on 11.10.2023, since SLP No.1007 of 2024, titled as The State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. Versus Roop Lal, was stayed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, vide order dated 19.01.2024 and, therefore, the adjudication of claims with respect to Class-III employees shall be subject to final outcome of SLP by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Roop Lal. In these circumstances, the Respondents-State authorities shall abide by the claim of admissibility and entitlement for pension, in case of Class-III employees in terms of the mandate of the judgment, to be passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in SLP No.1007 of 2024 in Roop Lal’s case [supra]. CONCLUSION AND DIRECTIONS: 12. In these circumstances, the Respondents-State authorities shall abide by the claim of admissibility and entitlement for pension, in case of Class-III employees in terms of the mandate of the judgment, to be passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in SLP No.1007 of 2024 in Roop Lal’s case [supra]. CONCLUSION AND DIRECTIONS: 12. In view of the above discussion and for the reasons recorded hereinabove, the instant petitions under Set-‘A’ and Set-‘B’ are allowed and the petitions under Set-‘C’ are disposed of in the following terms:- DIRECTIONS IN CASES AT SET ‘A’: [PENSION TO CLASS-IV RETIREES]: (i) Case under Petition in Lead Case i.e. CWPOA No.913 of 2020, titled as Kansu Ram Versus The State of H.P. and others, the petition stands allowed; (ii) Respondents-State Authorities are directed to release the pension to the petitioner in Lead Case as in (i) above w.e.f. 01.01.2018, in terms of the mandate of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in cases of Sunder Singh and Balo Devi [supra] with all consequential benefits; (iii) As a sequel to directions in Lead Case as in (i), supra, all other connected petitions i.e. (i) CWP No.5435 of 2022, titled as Mohinder Chand Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others; (ii) CWP No.5915 of 2022, titled as Gorkhu Ram Versus The State of H.P. and others; (iii) CWP No.5918 of 2022, titled as Uttam Singh Versus State of H.P. and others; (iv) CWP No.6471 of 2022, titled as Kalawati Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others; (v) CWP No.7905 of 2022, titled as Chand Ram Versus State of HP and others; (vi) CWP No.8822 of 2023, titled as Asha Thakur Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others; (vii) CWP No.712 of 2024, titled as Nirmala Devi Versus State of H.P. and others; (viii) CWP No.2533 of 2024, titled as Lori Devi Versus State of H.P. and others; (ix) CWP No.3586 of 2024, titled Ram Lal Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others; (x) CWP No.4308 of 2024, titled as Roshan Lal Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others; (xi) CWP No.6324 of 2024, titled as Manager Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others; and (xii) CWP No.8957 of 2024, titled as Salochna Devi Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others, are also allowed. Directions contained in Lead Case titled as Kansu Ram Versus The State of H.P. and others as in Set ‘A’ shall mutatis mutandis apply to petitioners in all connected cases; (iv) Needless to say that pension shall accrue to the petitioners w.e.f. 01.01.2018; but actual monetary benefits shall be restricted for a period of 3 years preceding the filing of petitions by petitioners under Set-‘A’[OA/CWPOAs/CWPs]. DIRECTIONS IN CASES AT SET ‘B’:[PENSION TO CLASS-IV RETIREES]: (v) Petition in Lead Case i.e. CWP No.9176 of 2024, titled as Ram Singh Versus State of H.P. and others, shall stand allowed; (vi) Respondents-State Authorities are directed to release pension to petitioner in Lead Case as in (v) above or/and family pension w.e.f. 01.01.2018 in terms of mandate of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in cases of Sunder Singh, Balo Devi and the Full Bench judgment of this Court in case of Baldev [supra] to the petitioner, with all consequential benefits; (vii) As a sequel to directions in Lead Case as in (v), supra, all other connected petitions i.e. (i) CWP No.899 of 2024, titled as Gian Chand Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others; (ii) CWP No.5933 of 2024, titled as Painu Ram Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others; (iii) CWP No.6316 of 2024, titled as Gopal Singh Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others; (iv) CWP No.9188 of 2024, titled as Shyam Singh Versus State of H.P. and others; (v) CWP No.9208 of 2024, titled as Budhi Devi Versus State of H.P. and others; (vi) CWP No.9599 of 2024, titled as Narvada Devi Versus State of H.P. and others; (vii) CWP No.9601 of 2024, titled as Khem Singh Versus State of H.P. and others; and (viii) CWP No.9602 of 2024, titled as Tek Chand Versus State of H.P. and others, are also allowed; Directions contained in Lead Case, i.e. CWP No.9176 of 2024, titled as Ram Singh Versus State of H.P. and others as in Set ‘B’ shall mutatis mutandis apply to petitioners in all connected cases; (viii) Needless to say that pension/family pension shall accrue to the petitioners w.e.f. 01.01.2018, but actual monetary benefits shall be restricted for a period of 3 years preceding the filing of the respective petitions by petitioners in Set-B [OA/CWPOAs/CWPs]. DIRECTIONS IN CASES AT SET ‘C’: [PENSION FOR CLASS-III RETIREES]: (ix) Petition in Lead Case i.e. CWP No.8524 of 2023, titled as Kasho Devi Versus State of H.P. and others, shall stand disposed of; (x) Respondents-State Authorities to extend the benefit of pension to petitioner w.e.f. 01.01.2018 subject to the outcome of SLP No.1007 of 2024, titled as The State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. Versus Roop Lal, pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, against the judgment in LPA No.196 of 2022 dated 11.10.2023; (xi) Admissible benefits, if any, shall follow subject to outcome of SLP, hereinafter. 13. In aforesaid terms, all the above writ petitions stand disposed of, including all pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.