Shimla, September 3: The Himachal Pradesh High Court on Wednesday set aside an order of the Mandi Deputy Commissioner that had denied pension benefits to a retired Class-IV employee, Sohan Lal. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua held that the official had ignored binding precedents and directed fresh consideration of the petitioner’s claim within four weeks.
Background
Sohan Lal, who joined as a Class-IV worker, served for years first as a daily wager and later as a regular employee. His services were converted to daily wage status on February 27, 2004, and he was regularized on January 1, 2012. He retired on August 31, 2021, after 9 years and 8 months of regular service and nearly 8 years of daily wage work.
Read also:- Rajasthan High Court Raps Police Over Ignoring Warrants, Demands DGP's Explanation
Despite this, his plea for pension benefits was turned down on July 7, 2025. The Deputy Commissioner ruled that under the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, he had not completed the mandatory 10 years of qualifying service.
Court's Observations
Justice Dua found the reasoning faulty, noting that the authorities had overlooked landmark rulings in Sunder Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Balo Devi v. State of Himachal Pradesh.
Quoting from the earlier Supreme Court-backed decisions, the judge said:
"Daily wage service of five years will be treated equal to one year of regular service for pension. If on that basis, their services are more than eight years but less than ten years, their service will be reckoned as ten years."
In other words, a blend of daily wage years and regular service could make an employee eligible for pension even if the strict 10-year regular service requirement wasn't met.
The bench observed,
"It is evident that the decisions in Sunder Singh and Balo Devi have not even been looked into by respondent No.2."
Read also:- Andhra Pradesh High Court grants bail to youth accused in 40 kg ganja transport case
Decision
Holding that the petitioner prima facie qualified for pension when his daily wage service was factored in, the court quashed the July 7 rejection order. Justice Dua directed the Deputy Commissioner to reconsider Lal’s claim strictly in light of the earlier judgments and to issue a fresh decision within four weeks.
The case ended with a clear mandate: Sohan Lal's long years of service could not be dismissed by narrow interpretation. Whether he finally receives pension now rests on the compliance of the Deputy Commissioner with the court's directive.
Case Title: Sohan Lal vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors.
Case Number: CWP No. 14216 of 2025
