The Himachal Pradesh High Court reaffirms that Class-IV employees, engaged as daily wagers prior to 10.05.2001 and regularized thereafter, are to be deemed as retired at age 60 (not 58) for pension purposes, even if actually retired earlier; they are entitled to notional pay fixation — not actual salary — from the date of actual retirement till deemed retirement. This upholds and applies the binding precedent of Baldev Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh, providing clear authority on pension entitlement calculations for similarly placed employees.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CWP/1630/2022 of BALWANT SINGH Vs STATE OF HP AND OTHERS CNR HPHC010386392021 |
| Date of Registration | 22-03-2022 |
| Decision Date | 01-09-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | Disposed Off |
| Judgment Author | Hon’ble Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua |
| Court | High Court of Himachal Pradesh |
| Precedent Value |
|
| Overrules / Affirms |
|
| Type of Law | Service Law — Pension, Notional Pay Fixation, Retirement Age of Regularized Class-IV Employees after Daily Wage Service |
| Questions of Law | Are Class-IV employees who were engaged as daily wagers prior to 10.05.2001 but regularized later, and retired prior to notification dated 21.02.2018 at age 58, entitled to pension and notional pay fixation up to the age of 60 by deeming retirement w.e.f. age 60? |
| Ratio Decidendi | The Court held that in view of the Baldev Singh judgment, there can be no discrimination amongst similarly situated Class-IV employees engaged as daily wagers prior to 10.05.2001 but regularized after. Even if such employees were retired at age 58 before the 2018 notification, their date of retirement will be deemed as the date they would have otherwise attained age 60. While actual monetary benefits (salary, etc.) for the intervening period are not payable, notional pay fixation is allowed solely for the calculation of pension and consequential arrears. The petitioner’s case was accordingly redressed by notional pay fixation and revised pension as per these principles. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | The Court relied on the principle of non-discrimination among similarly situated Class-IV employees, as settled in Baldev Singh, and the entitlement to notional fixation of pay for those who had already retired prior to new notification dates. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The petitioner was appointed as a daily wager in 1992, accorded work charge status in 2002, and regularized as Mali in 2007. He retired on attaining age 58 on 31.05.2016. His pension was sanctioned with effect from 01.01.2018, and arrears paid w.e.f. 01.01.2018 to 31.01.2022, following Baldev Singh. The petitioner contended for pension w.e.f. 01.06.2016, but respondents applied Baldev Singh, provided notional pay fixation for that period, and paid pension as per revised calculations. |
| Citations |
|
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts and authorities in Himachal Pradesh in pension and retirement age matters involving similarly situated Class-IV employees |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts and tribunals dealing with daily wage/regularized employee pension issues under similar service regimes |
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- The notional date of retirement for Class-IV daily wage employees regularized prior to the 2018 notification is to be calculated as the date when the employee would have attained 60 years, even if actually retired earlier.
- Such employees are not entitled to actual salary or monetary benefits for the period between actual and deemed retirement, but are entitled to notional pay fixation for pension calculation and consequential pension arrears.
- The precedent in Baldev Singh is binding and has been reaffirmed as the governing principle; lawyers should cite both Baldev Singh and this judgment for similar claims involving pre-2018 retired regularized daily wage employees.
- Grievances regarding the period for which pension is calculated should be addressed with reference to the notional calculation as clarified herein.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court accepted that Baldev Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh (CWP No. 2711/2017) was the binding precedent, providing that there can be no discrimination among similarly situated Class-IV employees regarding the date of retirement for pension purposes.
- Employees who were engaged as daily wagers prior to 10.05.2001 but regularized after, and retired prior to the issuance of notification dated 21.02.2018 at age 58, are to be deemed as retired at age 60, with notional fixation of pay for intervening period, solely for pension calculation.
- The Court referred to Ghindro Ram v. State of H.P. (CWP No. 2414/2020), which had already applied similar logic.
- Respondents had acted in accordance with this principle: granting the petitioner notional pay fixation and recalculated pension, but not actual salary for the period between age 58 and age 60.
- The Court held that since the petitioner’s claim was redressed as per the above precedent, the writ petition stood disposed of with no further relief.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Claimed pension entitlement from the date of actual retirement (31.05.2016), contending denial of salary and pension for two years caused irreparable loss.
- Challenged the respondents’ calculation giving pension only w.e.f. 01.06.2018.
- Sought application of Ghindro Ram principle for parity.
Respondent (State)
- Argued that as per Baldev Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh, the petitioner’s deemed date of retirement was at age 60 (i.e., 31.05.2018), not the actual date of retirement at 58, for the purpose of pension calculation.
- Explained that only notional pay fixation for the intervening period was permissible, not actual salary, and pension was calculated accordingly; arrears were paid as per these principles.
Factual Background
The petitioner, engaged as a daily wager in 1992 and later regularized as a Class-IV employee (Mali) in 2007, retired on attaining age 58 on 31.05.2016. He was originally denied pension, but administrative action and the issuance of a Pension Payment Order (PPO) later granted pension effective 01.01.2018. He contested the restriction of pension to the later date, arguing entitlement from actual retirement. Proceedings clarified the correct legal position as per existing binding judgments.
Statutory Analysis
- The judgment interprets rules regarding pension entitlement and retirement age for Class-IV government employees, particularly those regularized after being daily wagers.
- Applies the principle that pay can be notionally fixed for the intervening period between actual and deemed date of retirement, solely for pension calculation, with no entitlement to actual monetary benefits (salary, etc.) for that period.
- The relevant service law precedent (Baldev Singh) clarified non-discrimination among employee categories and the calculation mechanism for pension benefits.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinions were delivered in this judgment.
Procedural Innovations
None noted; the procedure followed established norms for writ petition disposition upon redressal of grievance in service law matters.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The judgment follows and applies the existing precedent set in Baldev Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh.
Citations
- CWP No. 1630/2022 (HPHC)
- CWP No. 2711/2017 (Baldev Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh, decided 22.02.2022)
- CWP No. 2414/2020 (Ghindro Ram v. State of H.P., decided 14.08.2023)