IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No.9084 of 2023 and connected matters. Decided on: 18.12.2025 _________________________________________________________________ 1. CWP No.9084 of 2023 Ravinder Singh Rana ....Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and Ors …Respondents _________________________________________________________________ 2. CWP No.3944 of 2024 Naresh Kumari ....Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and Anr …Respondents _________________________________________________________________ 3. CWP No.8916 of 2025 Pyare Lal ....Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and Ors …Respondents _________________________________________________________________ 4. CWP No.11002 of 2025 Kamla Devi ....Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and Ors …Respondents _________________________________________________________________ 5. CWP No.11003 of 2025 Neelam Kumari ....Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and Ors …Respondents _________________________________________________________________ - 2 - 6. CWP No.11006 of 2025 Bala Ram ....Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and Ors …Respondents _________________________________________________________________ 7. CWP No.10090 of 2025 Nishi Walia ....Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and Ors …Respondents _________________________________________________________________ 8. CWP No.12628 of 2025 Rajinder Singh ....Petitioner Versus HRTC & Anr …Respondents _________________________________________________________________ 9. CWP No.12662 of 2025 Puran Chand ....Petitioner Versus HRTC & Anr …Respondents _________________________________________________________________ 10. CWP No.12868 of 2025 Piar Chand Sharma ....Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and Ors …Respondents _________________________________________________________________ 11. CWP No.14612 of 2025 Surindera Kumari ....Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and Ors …Respondents _________________________________________________________________ - 3 - 12. CWP No.19822 of 2025 Sirmour Singh ....Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and Ors …Respondents _________________________________________________________________ 13. Ex. Pet No.216 of 2025 Kishore Chand ....Petitioner Versus HRTC and Ors …Respondents _________________________________________________________________ Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua 1 Whether approved for reporting? _________________________________________________________________ For the petitioners: Mr. Onkar Jairath, Mr. A.K.Gupta, Mr.H. S. Rangra, Mr. Surinder Prakash Sharma, Mr. Mukul Sood, Mr. Abhinav Purohit, Mr. Riditya Katoch, Mr. R.L.Verma, Advocate and Mr. Shagun Sharma, Advocates for the petitioner(s), in the respective petitions. For the respondents: Mr.Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. L.N.Sharma, and Additional Advocate General for the respondents-State. Mr. Raman Jamalta and Mr. Dheeraj K Vashishat, Advocates for the respondents-HRTC, in the respective petitions. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes - 4 - Mr. Tek Ram Sharma, Mr. Rangil Singh and Mr. Rajesh Kosh, Advocates for the respondent- Accountant General, in the respective petitions. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge The only grievance of the petitioners that has been highlighted at this stage is centered towards counting the contractual service rendered by them, followed by regularization as qualifying service for the purpose of ‘pension’. This relief has been claimed in light of law laid down in State of H.P. & Anr. Vs. Sheela Devi2. The aforesaid decision was followed in S.D. Jayaprakash & Ors. etc. Vs. The Union of India & Ors.3. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners have also invited attention to a decision rendered in Ram Chand & Ors. Vs. State of H.P. & Ors.4, whereby, the petitioners/ appellants (therein) were held entitled to count their contractual service for purpose of pensionary benefits as well as annual increments for the said period with consequential benefits, but restricting the actual consequential benefits for 2 SLP(C) No. 10399/2020 decided on 07.08.2023 3 Civil Appeal No(s). 5671-5672 of 2025, decided on 29.04.2025 4 LPA No.232 of 2024, decided on 02.09.2024 - 5 - three years prior to the filing of the writ petitions. The operative part of the judgment reads as under:- “39. Accordingly, judgment passed by learned Single Judge is modified with observation that reasoning assigned for deciding CWPOA No.5187 of 2020, shall be Mutatis mutandi applicable to the present matter also and appellants shall be entitled for counting their contract service for the purpose of pensionary benefits as well as annual increments for the said period with all consequential benefits, but restricting actual consequential financial/benefits to three years prior to filing of the writ petition. 40. Due and admissible benefits shall be released to the appellants within a period of four months from today. Needless (to say that benefits given beyond three years prior to filing of writ petitions shall be extended to them on notional basis.” The aforesaid decision was assailed by the State of Himachal Pradesh in State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. Vs. Ram Chand and Ors.5, wherein, the Hon’ble Apex Court vide order dated 04.04.2025 stayed the impugned directions insofar as they related for counting the contractual service for grant of annual increments. Impugned directions for counting contractual service for the purpose pension, however, were not stayed. The order passed by Hon’ble Apex Court reads as under:- 5 SLP (C) Diary No(s). 8008 of 2025 - 6 - “Delay Condoned. Issue notice, returnable in four weeks. In the meanwhile, the direction passed by the High Court in the impugned order to count increments shall remain stayed.” Similar interim orders have been passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in large number of Special Leave Petitions (Civil) preferred by the State of Himachal Pradesh in such like matters. 3. In view of above, at this stage, learned Advocate General submits that the respondents-State shall proceed for considering the cases of the petitioners for grant of pension by computing the contractual service rendered by them as qualifying service for the purpose of pension in light of Sheela Devi2 subject to petitioners’ furnishing fresh options in accordance with law, within a period of two months from today, whereafter all consequential action based upon law laid down in Sheela Devi2 shall follow. 4. In view of above submission made by learned Advocate General, the impugned orders passed in the individual cases contrary to above submissions and position of law, are set-aside. Contractual service rendered by the petitioners followed by regularization be computed as - 7 - qualifying service for purpose of pension in accordance with Sheela Devi2 & Ram Chand5. This exercise be completed within three months from today. Petitioners shall be at liberty to seek appropriate remedy, at an appropriate stage for the redressal of their surviving grievances, if any, in accordance with law, in case necessity so arises in future. The petitions are disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge December 18, 2025 R.Atal