IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No.238 of 2021 Decided on 28th February 2026 Sh. Amar Singh …Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others …Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge 1Whether approved for reporting? Yes For the petitioner: Ms. Babita Chauhan, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, with Mr. Rajat Chauhan, Assistant Advocate General. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following relief:- “That Annexure P-4 may be set aside/quashed and the respondents may be ordered to treat the petitioner as regular employee from the date of his initial appointment on part time basis.” 2. In terms of the impugned order, the case of the petitioner has been rejected by the Authority by returning the following findings:- 2 “WHEREAS, as per R&P rules for the Class- IV employee of the education department, the PTWC were made as Whole Time Contingent Paid employee against the existing vacancies and thereafter they were to be promoted as regular Class-IV employee again against the available vacancies. Further, the said provisions got amended in August 2012, vide decision of the Government conveyed by the WDHE on dated 23.08.2012, vide letter no. EDN-HE (1) B (6)01/2008-Policy-PTWC. According to this decision, the services of petitioners were converted as water carrier-cum-Peon on daily waged basis, vide this office order no. Shiksha-Shimla (1-4) B- 13/2012-Loose-PTWCs as Daily Paid-27465- 27657, dated: 06.12.2012 alongwith other contemporaries. In the year 2017 i.e. July, 2017 the services of petitioners were regularised alongwith other contemporaries and due to non-availability of vacancies of class -IV the petitioner was transferred to Health department as per Govt. notification. WHEREAS, In the Judgment of Erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal in OA No.2951/2019 on dated 16.07.2019 it has been directed that respondents are to consider the case of petitioners, if the case is covered by Judgment rendered by the Hon'ble High Court in CWPNo.811/2011-titled as Ashwani Kumar Vs. Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board& others, but on going through the Judgment the case of petitioner of CWP No. 811/2011 Sh. Ashwani Kumar is not similar to that of Amar Singh as Sh. Ashwani Kumar was initially appointed on contract basis in Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board but the petitioner of OA No. 2951/2019 Sh. Amar Singh was appointed as Part time water carriers (i.e working for 04 hours daily only) in this department & they have been converted as water carrier cum Peon on daily wage oasis on dated 06.12.2012 as per Govt. policy. In the year 2017 i.e. July, 2017 the services of petitioners were 3 regularized alongwith other contemporaries and due to non-availability of vacancies of class -IV in the Education department the petitioner was transferred to Health department as per Govt. notification. WHEREAS, the present case is not same/similar to that of Sh. Ashwani Kumar V/s State of HP as the engagement of Sh. Amar Singh as PTWC was for a portion of day i.e, only for four hours & the petitioner of CWP No.811 of 2011, Ashwani Kumar V/s State of HP and others was initially engaged on contract basis. NOW THEREFORE, after considering all the facts mentioned here-in-above, the petitioner cannot be considered for regularization from the date of initially joining as per R&P rules and as the present case is not same/similar to that of Sh. Ashwani Kumar V/s State of HP as the engagement of Sh. Amar Singh as PTWC was for a portion of day i.e. only for four hours & the petitioner of CWP No.811 of 2011, Ashwani Kumar V/s State of HP and others was initially engaged on contract basis.” 3. The case of the petitioner is that he was engaged as a Part Time Water Carrier in the Education Department w.e.f. 08.08.2002 and brought on daily wage establishment in the month of December, 2012. Thereafter, the services of the petitioner were regularized as Peon in the Department of Education in the month of September, 2017. Learned counsel has further informed the Court that thereafter as the petitioner was declared surplus in the Education Department, his services 4 alongwith certain other candidates were transferred to the Health Department. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has a right to be appointed on regular basis from the date, he was appointed on part time basis in the light of the fact that the petitioner suffers from visual disability. She submits that this aspect of the matter has not been taken into consideration by the Authority while passing the impugned order and, accordingly, she has prayed that the impugned order be quashed and set aside. 5. On the other hand, learned Advocate General has drawn the attention of the Court to the impugned order as well as the reply filed by the respondents and submitted that in the present case the petitioner was initially engaged as a Part Time Water Carrier and thereafter he continued as such. Later with the change in the policy of the State Government, the services of the petitioner were converted to daily wage basis followed by regularization. Learned Advocate General submitted that herein, it is not a case that the petitioner was appointed against a post reserved for physically disabled on contract basis and in 5 this backdrop, the order passed by the Authority, cannot be faulted with for the reason that the judgment being relied upon by the petitioner was totally on different factual matrix as has been rightly observed by the authority concerned. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as also learned Advocate General and have also carefully gone through the pleadings as well as the documents appended therewith including the impugned order. 7. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was initially appointed as a Part Time Water Carrier. The appointment of the petitioner as a Part Time Water Carrier, obviously, was on the basis of the policy in vogue for the appointment of Part Time Water Carriers and as was informed by the learned Advocate General, there was no reservation for physically disabled persons in the policy for the engagement of Part Time Water Carriers. Some additional marks were given as an impetus to a candidates suffering from disability. 8. Therefore, herein, it is not a case that the petitioner was engaged may be on part time basis, but, against a post exclusively reserved for a physically disabled person. 6 The petitioner has also not appended any documents from which it can be inferred that the process was initiated by the respondent-Department to fill up the posts of Part Time Water Carriers exclusively from the physically disabled persons category and the petitioner participated in the said process and was selected on the basis of said process, though on part time basis. 9. In this backdrop, if one peruses the subsequent events, they demonstrate that the services of the petitioner were brought on daily wage establishment in December, 2012, and were later regularized as a Peon in the Education Department in September, 2017 alongwith other candidates. The reply filed by the State demonstrates that the above benefits were conferred upon the petitioner in terms of the policy framed by the Government, notified on 22.08.2012. It is further evident from the reply filed by the State that in terms of the Recruitment and Promotions Rules for the post of Class-IV Employees, 100% of the posts are filled through promotion from amongst eligible Water Carrier-cum-Peon working on daily wage basis in the Department. 7 10. The observations made in the impugned order, therefore, call for no interference. Unlike the parties in the case being relied upon by the petitioner, who were appointed against posts meant for disabled persons on contract basis, herein, the petitioner was simply engaged as a Part Time Water Carrier on part time basis as per Part Time Water Carrier Policy. In this backdrop, he could not have been given the benefit of the judgments relied upon by the petitioner. There is no similarity either in the factual matrix or legal matrix in the case being relied upon vis-à-vis the case of the petitioner. Accordingly, the case of the petitioner has been rightly rejected by the Authority concerned. 11. Thus, as this Court does not find any merit in the present petition, the same is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge February 28, 2026 (Vinod)