Retrospective Regularization Of Class-III Employees Counts For Pension Benefits In line with Precedents Applicable To Class-IV : Himachal Pradesh HC
The Himachal Pradesh High Court bench comprising Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua held that a Class-III employee, whose services were regularized retrospectively, is entitled to pensionary benefits by counting the qualifying period from the date of retrospective regularization. Further the benefit of judgments granting pension to Class-IV employees can be extended to similarly placed Class-III employees.
Background Facts
The petitioner was regularized under office order dated 20.03.2008, but retrospectively w.e.f. 01.01.2002. He superannuated on 28.02.2011. He sought pensionary benefits from the date of his retirement. The petitioner filed a petition claiming that 50% of his daily-waged service should be counted for the purpose of calculating pension. The High Court disposed of the writ petition on 27.03.2012 with a direction that the petitioner's entitlement would be subject to the outcome of a pending case. Further that if benefits found due, it should be disbursed within four weeks of finality of the decision.
However, the respondents failed to implement the directions. Consequently, the petitioner filed Execution Petition for enforcement. During the pendency of the execution petition, the respondents passed a consideration order dated 06.05.2025. They rejected the petitioner's claim on the grounds that the petitioner had only rendered 4 years, 4 months and 26 days of regular service as on the date of his retirement, which did not qualify him for pensionary benefits under the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972.
Aggrieved by the rejection order dated 06.05.2025, the petitioner filed the writ petition.
It was submitted by the petitioner that the respondents had committed an error by computing his qualifying regular service from 06.10.2006. As per office order dated 20.03.2008, the petitioner's services were regularized retrospectively with effect from 01.01.2002. The petitioner had retired on 28.02.2011, and therefore, his total qualifying regular service was 9 years and 2 months, which met the eligibility criteria for pension under the applicable rules. It was further submitted that the respondents erred in holding that the judgments in Sunder Singh vs. State of H.P. and Balo Devi vs. State of H.P. applied only to Class-IV employees. The petitioner relied upon the judgment of Roop Lal vs. State of H.P., wherein it was held that the benefit of the above two decisions was applicable to Class-III employees who had rendered daily wage service prior to regularization.
On the other hand, it was submitted by the respondents that the petitioner had rendered only 4 years, 4 months, and 26 days of regular service by the time of his retirement on 28.02.2011, which fell short of the minimum qualifying service required for pension under the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. It was further submitted that the judgments in Sunder Singh vs. State of H.P. and Balo Devi vs. State of H.P. were rendered in the context of Class-IV employees, whereas the petitioner had retired as a Mason Grade-II, which is a Class-III post. Therefore, the judgments were not applicable to the petitioner's case.
Findings of the Court
It was observed by the Court that the respondents had committed a factual error in calculating the petitioner's qualifying service from 06.10.2006. The office order dated 20.03.2008 clearly stated that the petitioner's services were regularized retrospectively with effect from 01.01.2002. Taking into account this retrospective effect, the petitioner had completed 9 years and 2 months of regular service by the time of his retirement on 28.02.2011. It was observed by the court that the finding recorded in the order that the petitioner had only 4 years, 4 months, and 26 days of regular service, was incorrect.
It was further observed by the court that in Roop Lal case, the benefit of decisions in Sunder Singh and Balo Devi had been ordered to be extended to Class-III employees as well. It was held by the Court that the rejection order dated 06.05.2025 suffered from both factual and legal infirmities. Accordingly, the Court quashed and set aside the order.
With the aforesaid findings, the writ petition was disposed of.
Case Name: Raju Ram vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Others
Case No.: CWP No. 9708 of 2025
Counsel for the Petitioner: Anjali Soni Verma and Shivani Tegta, Advocates
Counsel for the Respondents: Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General, Tek Ram Sharma, Advocate