Ajay Mohan Goel, J
1. By way of this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed that the respondents be directed to add 2 years’ service to the total service rendered by them on regular basis, in terms of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Sunder Singh versus The State of Himachal Pradesh, Civil Appeal No.6309 of 2017 to compute the pension payable to them. Further prayer is for quashing of Annexure P-2, in terms whereof, the representation of the petitioners to grant pension to them by adding 2 years weightage has been rejected by observing that this weightage is only for the purpose of entitlement for pension and not for enhancing the number of years for the purpose of calculating the pension.
2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that the petitioners were initially engaged in the respondents-Department on daily wage basis and their services were thereafter regularized. Post regularization, they completed
10 years’ qualifying service for the purposes of pension and were granted pension from the due date. The contention of the petitioners is that the service rendered by them on daily wage basis, has not been added to the qualifying service so as to calculate the pension.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that in terms of law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Sunder Singh’s case supra, (Annexure P-1), the petitioners should be given 2 years added weightage for the purpose of the calculation of pension and the act of the respondents of not doing so be declared as bad.
4. On the other hand, the stand of the respondents is that the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court is to the rescue of those incumbents, who after regularization were not having 10 years’ service so as to render them eligible for pension. Learned Additional Advocate General has argued that, in terms of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in such a situation, 5 years daily wage service is treated as 1 year regular service so as to add the same to the regular service rendered by the incumbent and if by addition thereof, the incumbent becomes eligible for the grant of pension, then, he has to be granted pension. He further submitted that the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court is not to the effect that if a person otherwise is eligible for pension, then, the daily wage service rendered by him has to be added as to enhance the number of years to calculate the pension payable to him.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also carefully gone through the pleadings and the documents appended therewith including the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
6. In terms of the averments made in the writ petition, all the petitioners after the regularization of their services, completed more than 10 years of service and were accordingly found eligible for the grant of pension.
7. Their prayer is that the daily wage service rendered by them be added to the actual regular service of theirs, in terms of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sunder Singh’s case supra and pension be paid to them by calculating the same by crediting the daily wage service also for the said purpose, in terms of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
8. This Court is of the considered view that this contention of the petitioners is without any merit. Before proceeding further, it is relevant to refer to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Sunder Singh’s Case, being relied upon by the petitioner. In Civil Appeal No.6309 of 2017, titled Sunder Singh versus The State of Himachal Pradesh and others, decided on 08.03.2018, the Hon’ble Supreme Court was pleased to hold that in a case, where the incumbent is not entitled to pension strictly by construing the rules, weightage of service rendered on daily wage be given for the purpose of pension. Hon’ble Supreme Court thereafter held that in the case of Class-IV employees, who were not having 10 years’ service after regularization, daily wage service of 5 years will be treated equal to 1 year of regular service for pension, meaning thereby, that if on that basis, where services are more than 8 years, but less than 10 years, their services will be reckoned as 10 years.
9. In said judgment, no law was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the daily wage service shall be counted for any other purpose except rendering a person eligible for the receipt of pension so as create a fiction that service rendered by the incumbent should be treated as 10 years’ service by giving him the benefit of 1 year for a daily wage service of 5 years for the purpose of pension.
10. Therefore, this Court has no hesitation in holding that no findings were returned by Hon’ble Supreme Court to the effect that in the case of persons, who are otherwise eligible for the receipt of pension i.e., who are having the requisite number of 10 years’ service post regularization, daily wage service rendered by such incumbents has to be taken into consideration by treating 5 years daily wage service as 1 year regular service so as to calculate the pension payable to them on said basis by adding additional years to the actual years of service rendered by them.
11. Accordingly, in view of the above discussion, this writ petition is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
