{"id":13388,"date":"2025-07-22T12:39:08","date_gmt":"2025-07-22T12:39:08","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/au\/13388\/"},"modified":"2025-07-22T12:39:08","modified_gmt":"2025-07-22T12:39:08","slug":"retrospective-regularization-of-class-iii-employees-counts-for-pension-benefits-in-line-with-precedents-applicable-to-class-iv-himachal-pradesh-hc","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/au\/13388\/","title":{"rendered":"Retrospective Regularization Of Class-III Employees Counts For Pension Benefits In line with Precedents Applicable To Class-IV : Himachal Pradesh HC"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>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.<\/p>\n<p>Background Facts <\/p>\n<p>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&#8217;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.<\/p>\n<p>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&#8217;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.<\/p>\n<p>Aggrieved by the rejection order dated  06.05.2025, the petitioner filed the writ petition.<\/p>\n<p>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&#8217;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. <\/p>\n<p>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&#8217;s case. <\/p>\n<p>Findings of the Court<\/p>\n<p>It was observed by the Court that the  respondents had committed a factual error in calculating the petitioner&#8217;s  qualifying service from 06.10.2006. The office order dated 20.03.2008 clearly  stated that the petitioner&#8217;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.<\/p>\n<p>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. <\/p>\n<p>With the aforesaid findings, the writ petition  was disposed of.<\/p>\n<p>Case Name: Raju Ram vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and  Others<\/p>\n<p>Case No.: CWP No. 9708 of 2025<\/p>\n<p>Counsel for the Petitioner: Anjali Soni Verma  and Shivani Tegta, Advocates<\/p>\n<p>Counsel for the Respondents: Y.P.S. Dhaulta,  Additional Advocate General, Tek Ram Sharma, Advocate<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"The Himachal Pradesh High Court bench comprising Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua held that a Class-III employee, whose services&hellip;\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":13389,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[14],"tags":[64,63,3409,99,15052,7593,186,15053,1794,184,185,15051,15050],"class_list":{"0":"post-13388","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-personal-finance","8":"tag-au","9":"tag-australia","10":"tag-benefits","11":"tag-business","12":"tag-class-iv","13":"tag-employees","14":"tag-finance","15":"tag-himachal-pradesh-hc","16":"tag-pension","17":"tag-personal-finance","18":"tag-personalfinance","19":"tag-regularization","20":"tag-retrospective"},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/au\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13388","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/au\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/au\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/au\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/au\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=13388"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/au\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13388\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/au\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/13389"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/au\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=13388"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/au\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=13388"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/au\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=13388"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}