Retired Class-IV Employee Not Expected To Understand Terms Like 'Acquiescence' Or 'Delay': HP High Court Quashes Pension Rejection Order

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has quashed the pension rejection order of a daily wage beldar worker, holding that pension cannot be denied on the ground that of delay in filing claim as a class IV cannot be expected to understand technical legal concepts like acquiescence or laches, and pension is a recurring right that cannot be defeated by delay.Rejecting the State's contention, Justice Sandeep Sharma remarked that: “Class-IV employee like petitioner cannot be expected to know the very meaning of acquiescence and as such, plea of delay and laches sought to be raised deserves to be rejected, especially when pension is recurring cause of action”.In 1983, the petitioner was appointed as a daily wage beldar in the Office of Executive Engineer District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh. His services were regularized in 1994 after after 11 years. He retired in 2000 after completing seven years of regular service. Later, the Supreme Court in the case of Surender Singh v/s State of Himachal Pradesh, clarified that daily wage services of Class-IV employees must be counted for the purpose of Pension. It held that 5 years of daily wage services would be counted as one year of regular service. Further, if the combined service exceeded eight years but fell short of ten years, it would be reckoned as ten years, making the employee eligible for pension. This principle was later reaffirmed in Balo Devi v. State of Himachal Pradesh (2022)Thus, as per this principle, the petitioner's seven years of regular service, plus two years of service from his daily wage service, should be treated as 10 years, which qualifies him for pension. However, the petitioner was declared ineligible for the pension by the State, on the ground that The petitioner filed his representation for the first time in 2024 and “it is well settled that fence sitter cannot be granted relief.”The Court remarked that the contention of the state that the petitioner has filed his claim late cannot be accepted as he was a class-IV worker and cannot be expected to know complex legal concepts like “delay” or “acquiescence.”The Court noted that In 2019, pursuant to the Supreme Court's judgement even the Government of Himachal Pradesh passed a notification and advised all the Administrative Secretary, but even then the state did not abide by and majority of daily wage employees had to approach the Court. Thus, the Court allowed the petition and directed the state to grant pension to the petitioner and scheduled the matter on October 27, 2025 for checking compliance. Case Name: Jagat Ram v/s State of Himachal PradeshCase No.: CWP No. 7143 of 2025Date of Decision: 02.09.2025For the Petitioner: Mr. Vineet Vashistha and Umesh, Advocates.For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr.Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C.Verma, Additional Advocate Generals and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for the respondents-State.Mr. Tek Ram Sharma, Advocate, for respondent Nos. 5 and 6.Click Here To Read/Download Order

Retired Class-IV Employee Not Expected To Understand Terms Like 'Acquiescence' Or 'Delay': HP High Court Quashes Pension Rejection Order

Mehak Aggarwal

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Mehak Aggarwal

Retired Class-IV Employee Not Expected To Understand Terms Like 'Acquiescence' Or 'Delay': HP High Court Quashes Pension Rejection Order

Mehak Aggarwal

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Mehak Aggarwal

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers