A retired Class-IV daily wage worker challenged a decision denying him pension, following his retirement after a period of both daily wage and regular service. He had been appointed in 1983 as a daily wage beldar in the Office of the Executive Engineer, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh. After about eleven years in that status, his services were regularized in 1994. He then served seven years in regular service and retired in 2000.
The State administration declined to grant pension on the ground that the petition filed by the worker was delayed. It refused his claim on the basis that he had not filed a representation or claim earlier, suggesting that some sort of acquiescence or laches (legal delay) barred him. The worker had, however, only made his first representation in 2024.
Important background is that earlier Supreme Court rulings had clarified that for daily wage Class-IV employees, their period of service as daily wage workers is to be counted towards pension eligibility. Specifically, in Surender Singh vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, it was held that five years of daily wage service would count as one year of regular service; further, if combined service (daily wage plus regular) exceeded eight years but was less than ten, it should be reckoned as ten years. This rule was reaffirmed in a more recent case, Balo Devi vs. State of Himachal Pradesh in 2022. Under that principle, the petitioner’s years of service—seven years regular plus two accountable years of daily wage service—amount to ten years, making him eligible for pension.
The Himachal Pradesh High Court, while hearing his petition, rejected the State’s contentions. The Court held that as a Class-IV employee (daily wage worker), the petitioner could not be expected to understand complex legal doctrines such as acquiescence or laches. The Court emphasized that pension is a recurring right, and that delay in claiming it does not automatically disentitle one from the right, especially when the claimant belongs to a class of employees whose legal knowledge may be limited.
The Court also observed that even after the Supreme Court decision, the State Government had in 2019 issued a notification advising all Administrative Secretaries about the applicable principle, but had still not complied with it; many daily wage employees continued to litigate to enforce their rights.
On this basis, the Court quashed the pension rejection order of the State. It directed the State to grant pension to the petitioner, in line with the principles established by earlier Supreme Court rulings, and scheduled a follow-up for checking compliance.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.