Himachal Pradesh High Court: The present petition was filed by the wife of the deceased employee (‘wife’), claiming notional pension and notional family pension and actual family pension on account of her husband’s service as the Fitter, which was denied, because according to the Authorities, he had not rendered 10 years of qualifying service. A Single Judge Bench of Ranjan Sharma, J., relying on cases entitling the Class-III and Class-IV Employees for pension or family pension benefits, ordered pension to the employee notionally with effect from the date of his retirement and thereafter, the notional family pension would accrue to his wife from the date of his death till 31-12-2017. Further, the actual family pension would be released from 01-01-2018 onwards.
Background:
The employee was engaged as a Beldar on daily wage basis on 01-05-1984. He then served as a Pipeline man, then as an Assistant Fitter and finally as a Fitter. His services were regularized from 01-04-1998 and he retired after 9 years of service on 30-04-2007, but neither was he granted the pension, nor the resultant family pension was given to his wife after his death on 20-09-2015. The wife claimed notional family pension from the date of her husband’s death and actual family pensionary benefits with effect from 01-01-2018, based on the regular service and the weightage granted for daily waged service with effect from 01-01-2018.
The respondents averred that all the admissible retiral benefits were released to the deceased employee, and the pension was not admissible under the CCS (Pension) Rules 1972 (‘Rules’), as he had not rendered 10 years of qualifying service, and thus they prayed for dismissing the petition.
Analysis and Decision:
The Court relied on Sunder Singh v. State of H.P., 2018 SCC OnLine SC 3986, wherein the Supreme Court held that “reading the Rules consistent with Articles 14, 38 and 39 of the Constitution and applying the doctrine of proportionate equality, the employees were entitled to weightage of service rendered as daily wagers towards regular service for the purpose of pension. It was directed that, with effect from 01-01-2018, Class-IV employees would be entitled to pension if they had been duly regularized and had completed total eligible service of more than 10 years. Daily wage service of 5 years would be treated equal to one year of regular service for pension”. The mandate of Sunder Singh (supra) was further explained in Balo Devi v. State of H.P., 2022 SCC OnLine SC 2430. The benefit was also extended to Class III employees in Roop Lal v. State of H.P., 2023 SCC OnLine HP 1889. The Court noted that the deceased employee had rendered/deemed to have rendered continuous daily waged service for 13 years from 1985 till his regularization on 01-04-1998, which worked out to be 2 years regular service after giving weightage of 1 year regular service in lieu of 5 years of daily wages service, and had rendered 9 years of regular service from 01-04-1998 to 30.04.2007. Thus, based on the component of regular service and daily wage services, the regular qualifying service comes to more than 11 years vis a vis minimum requirement of 8 years of service, which was to be reckoned as 10 years of services.
Therefore, the Court, while allowing the petition, observed that the deceased employee was entitled to pension notionally with effect from the date of his retirement. Upon his death, the notional family pension would accrue to his wife from 20-09-2015 up to 31-12-2017. However, the actual benefits accruing from the family pension would be released to her from 01-01-2018, with all consequential benefits. The Court further directed that if the State Authorities failed to release the family pension, they would be liable for interest at the rate of 6 percent per annum, after expiry of three months.
[Sudarshna Devi v. State of H.P., 2025 SCC OnLine HP 4945, decided on 08-10-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Anil Sharma, Advocate, vice Archna Dutt.
For the Respondents: Sumit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General.