2026:HHC:29379 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWPOA No.2265 of 2019 Decided on: 16 th July, 2026 ___________________________________________________________________ Raj Kumar ....Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others ...Respondents _____________________________________________________________________ Coram Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the petitioner: Mr. Surinder Saklani, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Amit Kumar Chaudhary, Deputy Advocate General. ASI Sunit Kumar and H.C. Arvind Kumar-82, present in person. Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge (Oral) By way of present petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following substantive reliefs:- “i) That a writ in the nature of mandamus may very kindly be issued thereby directing the respondents to consider case of petitioner for appointment to the post of Class IV employee on compassionate grounds on regular basis with effect from 7.5.1997, with all consequential benefits of pay, arrears, seniority etc. ii) Or in the alternative, case of petitioner be considered for the post of whole time contingent paid on completion of 10 years as per policy of the year 1997.” 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2. The facts as emerge from the pleadings are that father of the petitioner was serving as a whole time Class-IV employee with respondent No.3, who unfortunately expired on 18.04.1997. The petitioner after death of his father was offered appointment as part time Class-IV employee w.e.f. 07.05.1997 as Cook. It has been averred that since father of the petitioner was serving as a whole time Cook with the respondents- Department and further the petitioner was fulfilling the requisite qualifications, to be appointed as full time Class-IV employee on compassionate grounds, the respondents- Department ought to have offered him appointment as full time Class-IV employee. 3. The petitioner made many requests to respondent No.3 to at least convert his services as Class-IV employee, since his father was a whole time Cook, but it was conveyed that he may get his name registered in the concerned employment exchange. The petitioner also applied under the Right to Information Act to get the information, and as per the information supplied by the respondents, he came to know that 3 the petitioner was appointed as part time Cook on compassionate grounds in place of one Sh. Surinder Kumar. It has also been averred that after completion of ten years of service as part time worker, his services were converted to daily wages from 22.05.2010. It has further averred that on receipt of the information, the petitioner had apprehension that he was not appointed as Class-IV employee in place of his father, just to accommodate some other person, as otherwise, there were so many posts of Class-IV employee and the persons, who were employed, stands regularized prior to the petitioner. 4. It has also been averred that once father of the petitioner was a regular whole time Cook with the respondents, it was incumbent upon them to consider his claim for appointment against Class-IV post on compassionate grounds. It has further been averred that respondent No.3 had informed the petitioner that as and when post of Class-IV employee falls vacant, his candidature will be considered, but surprisingly more than one and a half decade has passed, but his candidature was not considered for regular appointment as 4 Class-IV employee. 5. It has further been averred that if the appointment of the petitioner is seen, which was made in the year 1997, even as per the policy of part time workers, as prevailing in 1997, persons after completion of ten years of service were required to be converted into full time contingent paid, but the policy has not been implemented in its true letter and spirit and thus, the petitioner sought a direction to the respondents to consider his case for appointment to the post of Class-IV employee, on compassionate grounds, on regular basis w.e.f. 07.05.1997. 6. Respondents No.1 and 4 filed reply to the petition and averred that the petitioner is not entitled to file the present petition as there is unexplained delay of about 18 years (calculated from the date of his engagement on 18.05.1997) in filing the petition. It has further been averred that father of the petitioner at the time of his death was working as a part time employee until being regularized as full-time employee in the year 1994. After the death of father of the petitioner on 18.04.1997, the request of the petitioner was considered 5 keeping in view the indigent circumstances prevailing in his family and he was engaged as part time cook on 09.05.1997. 7. It has further been averred that since father of the petitioner was working as a daily wager and not as a Class-IV employee, his case was not covered under the policy dated 18.01.1990, as the same did not provide for compassionate appointment to daily wagers, but was only limited to Class-III and Class-IV employees and thus there was no justification to offer appointment to the petitioner as Class-IV employee. It has also been averred that services of the petitioner were converted to that of daily wager from 22.05.2010, vide letter dated 11.06.2010, in accordance with the instructions/directions of the Government dated 13.10.2009 on completion of ten years of continuous service as on 31.03.2009. So far as the claim raised by the petitioner that he may be considered for recruitment as Class-IV employee is concerned, it was submitted that there is no such policy of the Government. 8. Respondents No.2 and 3 filed their separate reply to the petition and averred that father of the petitioner was 6 working as whole time contingent paid Class-IV prior to his death. On the oral request of the petitioner for engagement as part time cook, the respondent-Department on sympathetic grounds engaged him as part time water carrier in Police Station, Jawlamukhi, by order of respondent No.3 on 07.05.1997. 9. It has further been averred that services of the petitioner were converted to that of daily wager as water carrier on 22.05.2010 in accordance with the instructions/directions of the Government dated 13.10.2009. 10. The petitioner filed rejoinder to the replies and controverted the facts. 11. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record carefully. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that since father of the petitioner was working as a Class-IV employee, it was incumbent upon the respondents- State to offer him appointment as Class-IV employee. It is apt to note here that father of the petitioner had died on 18.04.1997. 7 The petitioner was offered the appointment on compassionate grounds on 07.05.1997, as part time Class-IV employee. If the petitioner was aggrieved by the offer of appointment as part time Class-IV employee, he could have come to the Court immediately after the said order. The services of the petitioner were converted to daily wage status w.e.f. 22.05.2010, as per order dated 11.06.2010 (Annexure P-3). Even at that time, the petitioner did not come to the Court to claim that his services ought to have been regularized after completion of ten years of service. 13. Learned counsel for the petitioner to buttress his submissions has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by this Court in CWPOA No.4275 of 2020, titled, Hem Raj Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, and contended that it was incumbent upon the respondents-State to consider the claim of the petitioner for conferment of work charge status on completion of required number of years, as per the policy and since the petitioner has been denied the benefit, the delay will not come in his way. 8 14. No doubt, this Court has held that a duty is cast upon the respondents-State to consider the claim of the employees to confer the work charge status on completion of required number of years, as per the policy, but the said judgment is not attracted to the facts of the present case, for the purpose of granting the petitioner, appointment as Class-IV, from the initial date of appointment. At the most, the petitioner, as per the policy decision of the State Government, can be held entitled for the post of whole time contingent paid, on completion of ten years’ service, taking his date of appointment as 07.05.1997, but not for the purpose of offering him appointment to the post of Class-IV employee or regular employee after the demise of his father. 15. As already discussed above, cause of action had only arisen when the petitioner was offered appointment, vide office order dated 08.05.1997 w.e.f. 07.05.1997 and since he has approached the Court after 18 years of service, this Court cannot grant any relief to him, except that his services ought to have been brought on whole time contingent paid, on 9 completion of ten years’ service, as per the policy of the State Government, which period he had completed on 07.05.2007. 16. The action on the part of the respondents is not above Board, for the reason that they have stated that father of the petitioner was not a Class-IV employee and the petitioner was not offered appointment on compassionate appointment. A perusal of the appointment order dated 08.05.1997 clearly reveals that the petitioner has been offered appointment on compassionate grounds, keeping in view the indigent condition of his family and further even as per the reply filed by the respondents, it is clear that the said circumstance had weighed with them, when offering appointment him appointment. It is totally wrong to aver by the respondents that father of the petitioner was not a regular employee, whereas he was working as a part time employee earlier and thereafter his services were regularized as full time employee in the year 1994, but keeping in view of the fact that the petitioner has approached this Court very late, this Court cannot give a direction to the respondents to offer him appointment as a Class-IV from the initial date of 10 his appointment, but at the same time to balance the equity, once the respondents had offered the appointment to him as part time Class-IV, his services ought to have been brought on whole time contingent paid after completion of ten years of service i.e. w.e.f. 07.05.2007. 17. 17. Consequently, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to convert the services of the petitioner to whole time contingent paid, immediately after completion of ten years of service, in terms of the policy of the State Government and thereafter regularize his services from due date as Class-IV with all consequential benefits except monetary benefits. The petitioner shall be entitled to monetary benefits only from the date of filing the petition. No order as to costs. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. 16 th July, 2026 ( Jiya Lal Bhardwaj ) (ankit) Judge