2026:HHC:18166 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.16643 of 2025 Decided on: 19.05.2026 Smt. Darshni Devi … Petitioner Versus The State of Himachal Pradesh and others … Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 ____________________________________________________ _ For the petitioner: Mr. Rahul Singh, Advocate, vice Mr. Hemant Vaid, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, Additional Advocate General. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs:- “a. By issuing a writ in the nature of certiorarie, the order annexure P-1 be quashed. b. By issuing a writ in the nature of mandamus, the respondents be directed to regularize the petitioner from an appropriate date when the persons joining the department after the petitioner as Part Time Water Carriers were regularized. The respondents be further 01023 directed to grant to the petitioner the arrears of the appropriate salary, increments etc with interest as such amount has been refused and withheld by the respondents most illegally. c. The respondents be directed to grant to the petitioner the cover of pension under the CCS Pension Rules 1972 (old pension scheme) to which the petitioner had opted and for which she is entitled to after calculating the same considering her to the regularized from an appropriate 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2026:HHC:18166 date.” 2. The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as a Part-Time Water Carrier on 29.09.1997 in the Education Department, in Government Primary School Nihalgarh, Tehsil Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur, H.P. Thereafter, the services of the petitioner were converted on daily wage basis w.e.f. 11.12.2012 and she was regularized on 25.10.2016. The petitioner superannuated as a regular Peon on 31.07.2025. According to the petitioner, in the year 2023, the petitioner was given an opportunity to opt for the old CCS Pension Rules, 1972 and the petitioner opted for the same. However, vice Office Order dated 02.07.2025, the petitioner was informed that her case for including her under the Old Pension Scheme was rejected on the ground that she had not completed the mandatory 10 years of regular service as on the date of her retirement. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this petition. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner was appointed as a Part-Time Water Carrier on 29.09.1997 and her services were converted to contingent-based daily wage w.e.f. 11.12.2012. Thereafter, the petitioner was regularized on 25.10.2016 and she retired on 31.07.2025. He submitted that the contingent daily wage service of the petitioner has to be included while computing the eligibility of the petitioner for the purpose of grant of pension in terms of the judgment of the Hon’ble Coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No.6688 of 2021, titled Bimla Devi Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & others, decided on 27.06.2025. 3 2026:HHC:18166 4. On the other hand, Learned Additional Advocate General argued that as the petitioner was not having 10 years service as on the date of her regularization, her case for grant of pension has been rightly rejected. Learned Additional Advocate General further informed that as per his instructions, the judgment of the Hon’ble Coordinate Bench, passed in Bimla Devi’s case stands before the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court by way of a Letters Patent Appeal and this Court should await the outcome of the said judgment. 5. This Court is of the considered view that as the issue whether the contingent daily wage serve has to be treated as qualifying service alongwith the regular service rendered by a Part- Time Worker is pending adjudication before the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court, this petition can be disposed of by observing that the findings returned therein shall be binding on the parties herein also. 6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner as also learned Additional Advocate General agreed for the same and accordingly, this petition is disposed of with the direction that the outcome in the appeal in Bimla Devi’s case which is pending adjudication before the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court shall be binding on the parties on the parties in the present case also. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge May 19, 2026 (Rishi)