Daily Wage Workers With 8+ Years Service Eligible For Pension Even If Total Service Falls Short Of 10 Years: HP HC
Himachal Pradesh High Court: A single judge bench of Justice Satyen Vaidya granted pension benefits to a daily wage worker despite initial calculations showing less than the required qualifying service period. The court ruled that daily wage service, when followed by regularization, must be counted towards pension eligibility. The bench further held that workers having 8+ but less than...
Himachal Pradesh High Court: A single judge bench of Justice Satyen Vaidya granted pension benefits to a daily wage worker despite initial calculations showing less than the required qualifying service period. The court ruled that daily wage service, when followed by regularization, must be counted towards pension eligibility. The bench further held that workers having 8+ but less than 10 years of total service should be considered as satisfying the full 10 years of qualifying service.
Background
Bhima Ram was appointed as a Beldar on daily wage basis in the Irrigation and Public Health Department. His services were terminated in 1993, and he was retired from service on July 12, 2010. After retirement, he filed a writ petition seeking work charge status/regularization based on his years of service. The Division Bench decided the case on November 28, 2014, directing the authorities to decide his case on merits. Consequently, in 2015, the Executive Engineer granted him work charge status from January 1, 2004 and regularization from December 12, 2005, noting he had completed eight years of continuous service.
Bhima Ram then filed another application seeking pension benefits, citing the Supreme Court's judgment in Sunder Singh vs. State of HP. The Tribunal directed the authorities to extend benefits to him if he was similarly situated. However, the Executive Engineer denied him pension benefits on June 10, 2019, holding that his total qualifying service fell short of the requisite 10 years. Aggrieved, Bhima Ram filed the present writ petition.
Arguments
Mr. P.D. Nanda, representing Bhima Ram, argued that Ram had completed 240 days of daily wage service in 1995, as evidenced by muster rolls. He further submitted that Ram had been wrongly superannuated at 58 years instead of 60 years of age, which if corrected would enable him to complete the qualifying service required for pension benefits.
Mr. Hemant K. Verma, representing the state, objected that the petition was barred by res judicata and under Order 2 Rule 2 of the CPC. He maintained that Ram's service period and retirement age had been correctly calculated as per the rules. He further argued that Ram was not entitled to pension as his appointment was after May 15, 2003, when CCS Pension Rules were made inapplicable to State Government employees.
Court's Findings
Firstly, the court noted that according to the office order dated June 10, 2019, the state admitted that Ram rendered continuous daily wage service for 8 years, and thereafter regular service for 6.5 years more. This order, passed by the Executive Engineer, IPH Division Sundernagar, denied pension benefits to the petitioner after assessing his service records.
Secondly, citing Baldev vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, the court found that since Ram was engaged on daily wage basis prior to May 10, 2001, and regularized afterward, he should be deemed to have retired at 60 years of age rather than 58 years. This added two more years to his service, bringing his total eligible service to 9 years, 6 months, and 12 days.
Thirdly, the court cited Balo Devi vs. State of HP (Supreme Court, SLP(C) No.-018830 / 2021), which clarified the interpretation of the Supreme Court in Sunder Singh vs. State of H.P. (Supreme Court, Civil Appeal No. 6309 of 2017). Sunder Singh had established that one year of regular service should be counted for every five years of service as a daily wager. In Balo Devi, the Court further explained that if after this calculation, the total service exceeds 8 years but remains less than 10 years, it should be considered as full 10 years for pension purposes. Since Ram's service exceeded 8 years, the court concluded he qualified for pension benefits.
Fourthly, the state argued that Ram's appointment must be reckoned from his regularisation date (2004), which would then make the Central Civil Services Pension Rules, 2003 inapplicable. However, the court disagreed. The court cited State of H.P. vs. Matwar Singh (CWP No. 2384 of 2018), which held that work charge service followed by regularization must be counted as qualifying service. Additionally, the court noted that the state government had since made Central Civil Services Pension Rules applicable to all employees anyway.
Finally, the court rejected the argument that Ram was barred by principles of constructive res judicata and Order 2, Rule 2 of the CPC. The court noted that he had sought pension benefits at the first available opportunity after receiving the benefit of work charge status and regularization.
Thus, the court allowed the petition. It directed the state to grant pensionary benefits to Bhima Ram from his retirement date (July 12, 2012).
Decided on: 20th March, 2025
Neutral Citation: 2025:HHC:6748-DB | Bhima Ram v. State of H.P. & Ors.
Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. P.D. Nanda, Advocate
Counsel for the Respondents: Mr. Hemant K. Verma, Dy. A.G.
Click Here To Read/Download The Order
