IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.9352 of 2024 Decided on: 24th March, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Krishanu Ram …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Ajay Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondents: Ms. Menka Raj Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard at this stage. 2. Petitioner was appointed as Part-Time Water Carrier on 29.07.2002 in the respondent-Education Department. His services were converted as Whole-Time Contingent paid on 23.11.2011. Services of the petitioner were regularized as a Class-IV employee on 01.01.2013. Petitioner retired from government service on 31.08.2022 on attaining the age of 58 years. The petitioner stakes his claim to regular monthly pension, which presently has been 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 denied to him. The claim has been made on the strength of the decisions rendered in Sunder Singh Versus The State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors.2, Balo Devi & others Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others3 and Satya Devi Versus State of H.P. and others4. 3. Respondents’ defence for denying petitioner’s claim is that the services rendered by the petitioner on ‘Whole Time Contingent paid (daily wager) basis’ before regularization cannot be counted for the purpose of qualifying service for the grant of pension under the CCS (Pension) Rules. 4. Petitioner had retired as Class-IV employee, therefore, the relief claimed by him has to be considered by the respondents in light of the aforesaid decisions. Hence, without expressing any decision on the factual matrix of the case, which the respondents are require to examine vis-à-vis applicable legal position, this writ petition is disposed of by directing the respondents to consider and decide the case of the petitioner in light of the aforesaid decisions in the cases of Sunder Singh2, Balo Devi3 and Satya Devi4 by passing appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period of six weeks from today. The 2 Civil Appeal No.6309 of 2017, decided on 08.03.2018 3 Civil Appeal No.4792 of 2022, decided on 18.07.2022 4 CWP No.2274 of 2021, decided alongwith connected matters on 28.05.2024 3 decision so arrived at shall also be communicated to the petitioner. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua March 24, 2025 Judge Mukesh