IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA LPA No.77 of 2021 Decided on : 27.05.2026 State of HP and Others ...Appellants Versus Aman Rehalia and Anr. …Respondents. Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the appellants : Mr. Shalabh Thakur, Assistant Advocate General. For the respondents : Mr. Adarsh K. Vashista, Advocate. G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice (Oral) By way of the present appeal, a challenge has been laid to the order passed by the learned Single Judge in CWPOA No.7732 of 2019, titled Aman Rehalia and Anr. Vs. State of HP and Others, decided on 01.03.2021. 2. On an earlier occasion on 12.12.2023, the Coordinate Bench, as such had dismissed the present appeal by placing reliance upon various judgments and upholding the order, whereby directions had been given by the learned 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes -2- Single Judge, to compute the contractual period of service of the petitioner to compute his pensionary benefits at the stage of superannuation, in view of the law laid down in CWP No.5400 of 2014, titled Veena Devi Vs. HP State Electricity Board Ltd. and Anr., decided on 21.11.2014. 3. The matter was then taken to the Apex Court by the appellants/State and vide order dated 12.05.2026, passed in SLP(C) No.8312 of 2025, the same has been allowed by noticing that the argument of the State was that it was not a pensionable establishment and the judgment of the Coordinate Bench, as such, was set aside and the matter was remanded with directions to redecide the matter. The relevant part of the said order reads as under:- “3. Having heard learned counsel for the parties we are of the considered view that the impugned judgment dated 12.12.2023 needs to be quashed and set aside, more so, for the reason that the material placed on record by the present appellants was not considered by the High Court. Also, the respondents herein were not on the pensionable establishment.” 4. We have gone through the pleadings, as such of the writ petition and find that there were various defences raised by the State including that the Pension Rules of 1972 were not applicable to the respondent in view of the -3- amendment to the CCS(Pension Rule) notified on 17.08.2006. The fact also not disputed is that the petitioners initially were appointed on contract basis through Panchayat Samiti for Rs.3600/- per month and subsequently the scheme was superseded vide Notification dated 24th March, 2005 and monthly remuneration was enhanced and decision had taken for regularizing the contractual Junior Engineer and the separate cadre as such was created. 5. Plea taken is that the Junior Engineer of the Panchayati Raj was eligible for provident fund and keeping in view the reduction of the Junior Engineers of the respective Zila Parishad to the Employees’ Provident Fund Organization at their own level and conditions of Himachal Pradesh Panchayati Raj Appointment and Conditions Service of Junior Engineers in Zila Parishad Rules 2013 would govern the case. There is nothing to show that any replication, as such was filed to the plea taken in the written statement, which was filed. 6. In such circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the learned Single Juge itself has not referred to the specific pleas of the parties and only placed reliance upon on the judgment, which pertains to the Electricity Board in which it was held that how the contractual service is to be -4- counted. The basic grievance, as such, what were the rules applicable and whether it was the pensionable post, was argued by the State before the Apex Court, thus have to be gone into. 7. In such circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that unless the factual matrix is clarified and the finding recorded, it would not be appropriate for us in appeal to take a fresh call on the issue and even otherwise, both sides will be divested of the right to file an appeal. Resultantly, we deem it fit to allow the appeal by setting aside the judgment dated 01.03.2021 and remand the matter to the learned Single Judge for fresh adjudication. Accordingly, the present appeal stands disposed of. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (G.S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice (Bipin Chander Negi) Judge 27th May, 2026 (Gaurav Rawat)