IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No.5821 of 2024 Decided on 30th March, 2026 Sh. Mani Ram …Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others …Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge 1Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioner: Mr. Rakesh Kumar Dogra, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, Additional Advocate General. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for the following reliefs:- (i) “That a writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued, directing the respondents to bring the petitioner on the roll of “While Time contingent Paid Employees” w.e.f. 03.11.2007 (when he completed 10 years’ service on part time basis) instead of 27.09.2011 and further, regularize his services w.e.f. 03.10.2008 instead of 03.10.2012 on the same analogy, on which, his services were earlier regularized after completing on year’s service as Whole Time Contingent Paid Employee with a further direction to count the entire period of while time followed by regularization towards qualifying service for the purpose of pension and pensionary benefits and justice be done. 2 (ii) That a writ in the nature of mandamus may also be issued, directing the respondents to pay arrears following 0out of grant of relief(i) above alongwith interest @ 9% per annum and justice be done.” 2. Facts necessary for the adjudication of this writ petition are that the petitioner was initially appointed on part time basis as a Water Carrier on 03.11.1997. His services were converted to Whole Time Contingent Paid Water Carrier on 27.09.2011. Thereafter, he was promoted against the post of Peon on 03.10.2012 and he superannuated as a Laboratory Assistant, upon attaining the age of 58 years on 31.03.2022. In light of the fact that the petitioner did not have 10 years regular service post promotion, pension has been denied to him. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in light of the law declared by this Court, the Whole Time Contingent Paid service rendered by the petitioner has to be taken into consideration while determining the eligibility of the petitioner for grant of pension. He submitted that this extremely important aspect of the matter has not been taken into consideration by the Authority while rejecting the case of the petitioner to grant him pension on the ground that he had only 3 completed 9 years, 5 months and 28 days of service after his promotion against the post of Laboratory Assistant. 4. On the other hand, learned Deputy Advocate General has submitted that in light of the fact that the regular service of the petitioner, once he was promoted against the post of Laboratory Assistant, was not of 10 years, which is the minimum service required for being eligible to be considered for pension, there is no illegality in denial of pension to the petitioner. 5. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have also carefully gone through the pleadings as well as documents appended therewith. 6. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was initially engaged on part time basis w.e.f. 03.11.1997 and he served as such for more than 14 years as up to 31.03.2022 when his services were converted to a Whole Time Contingency Paid Worker. Thereafter, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Laboratory Assistant on 11.01.2018 and after putting in 9 years, 5 months and 28 days service as such, he superannuated from said post on 31.03.2022. 4 7. Hon’ble Coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No. 6688 of 2021, titled as Bimla Devi vs. State of H.P. and others, decided on 27.06.2025, has been inter alia pleased to hold, by placing reliance upon the judgments which are referred therein, that the contingent paid service has to be taken into consideration alongwith the regular service rendered by an employee for computing the qualification of the employee to receive pension and thus, this issue is no longer res integra. Further, the petitioner was converted to a Whole Time Contingent Paid worker on 27.09.2011, as from which date, the petitioner had completed more than 10 years of regular service as on 31.03.2022, when he retired. Therefore, he is entitled for pension in terms of the judgment passed by this Court in Bimla Devi’s case (supra). 8. This petition is, therefore, disposed of by holding that the act of the respondents of denying grant of pension to the petitioner is bad in law. The respondents are directed to grant pension to the petitioner by calculating his eligibility by taking into consideration the period during which the petitioner 5 served as a Whole Time Contingent paid worker till his promotion/regularization alongwith period, he worked on regular basis up to the date of his superannuation. Needful be done within a period of three months from today. The petition stands disposed of, so also the pending miscellaneous applications, if any. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge March 30, 2026 (Vinod)