2026:HHC:8075 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 5608 of 2025 Decided on: 20.03.2026 Dula Ram …….Petitioner Versus 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. Rohan Thakur, Advocate vice Mr. Maan Singh, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. R.P. Singh, Deputy Advocate General. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for the following relief:- “i). That annexure P-5, dated 4.3.2025 may kindly be quashed and set aside. ii) That, the respondent No.5 may kindly be directed to process the case of the petitioner for pension and ancillary benefits, after counting Whole Time Contingency Paid service (half period i.e. 5 months out of total ten months) and sanction the pension and other benefits like DCRG and leave encashment in favour of the petitioner accordingly.” 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2026:HHC:8075 ) 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 27.08.1997. His services were converted to Whole Time Contingent Paid Water Carrier on 11.09.2012. He was promoted against the post of Peon on 31.07.2013 and he superannuated from the said post, on attaining the age of 60 years on 31.03.2023. In light of the fact that the petitioner was not having 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 payment 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 pension on the ground that he had only completed 9 years and 8 months of service after his promotion against the post of Peon. 4. On the other hand, learned Deputy Advocate General has submitted that in light of the fact that the regular service of the 3 2026:HHC:8075 ) petitioner, once he was promoted against the post of Peon, 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. 27.08.1997 and he served as such for more than 15 years as up to 11.09.2012 when his services were converted to a Whole Time Contingency Paid worker. Thereafter the petitioner was promoted to the post of Peon on 31.07.2013 and after putting in 9 years and 8 months’ service as such, he superannuated from said post on 31.03.2023. 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 4 2026:HHC:8075 ) 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 11.09.2012, as from which date, the petitioner had completed more than 10 years of regular service as on 31.03.2023, 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 pension to the petitioner is bad in law and the respondents are directed to grant pension to the petitioner by calculating his eligibility by taking into consideration the period during which the petitioner 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 20, 2026 (narender)