Daily wage service benefits for pension eligibility extend to Class-III employees under Sunder Singh principles.

The petitioner was engaged as a daily wage Mason (a Class-III post) in 1991, completing 240 days of service in each calendar year

On 01.01.2001, he was brought onto the work charge/regular establishment, and his services were subsequently regularized on 28.07.2003

He superannuated from service on 30.06.2010

The respondents denied the petitioner pensionary benefits, contending that his combined work charge and regular service totaled only nine years and six months—falling short of the 10-year qualifying period

The State further argued that the legal precedents allowing daily wage service to be counted toward pension eligibility were applicable only to Class-IV employees

1. Whether work charge service followed by regular appointment must be counted as qualifying service for the purpose of pension

2. Whether the benefit of counting daily wage service toward pension eligibility (at a ratio of 5:1) is applicable to Class-III employees

3. Whether the petitioner is entitled to pension arrears despite delays in filing the petition

principle from State of Himachal Pradesh & Others v. Sh. Matwar Singh & Another (CWP No. 2384 of 2018), which established that work charge status followed by regular appointment must be counted as qualifying service for retirement benefits

Supreme Court of India's rulings in Balo Devi v. State of H.P. (Civil Appeal No. 4792 of 2022) and Sunder Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh (Civil Appeal No. 6309 of 2017), which held that five years of daily wage service shall be treated as one year of qualifying service for pension eligibility

Roop Lal v. State of Himachal Pradesh (LPA No. 196 of 2022), which extended these benefits to Class-III employees and settled the entitlement to arrears from 01.01.2018

The court determined that the petitioner’s work charge service of nine years and six months was undisputed

By applying the 5:1 ratio to his ten years of daily wage service (1991–2001), the petitioner earned an additional two years of qualifying service

When added to his regular/work charge tenure, his total qualifying service exceeded the 10-year requirement for pension

The court dismissed the State's distinction between Class-III and Class-IV employees, noting that recent adjudications in Roop Lal and Smt. Lachhi have made the issue res integra, confirming that Class-III employees are entitled to the same benefits

Regarding the delay in filing, the court followed the precedent of restricting financial liability by granting arrears only from 01.01.2018 rather than the date of retirement

The court held that the petitioner is entitled to pension, with arrears payable from 01.01.2018

The respondents were ordered to pay the arrears within three months and commence regular monthly pension payments starting May 2026

It was clarified that the daily wage and work charge service would be counted solely for pension eligibility and for no other purpose