2026:HHC:36672 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 2095 of 2026 Decided on: 27 .08 .2026 Kamlesh Chand …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others … Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes _____________________________________________________ For the petitioner : Mr. Surinder Saklani, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Pushpender Jaswal, Additional Advocate General for respondents- State. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has approached this Court, inter alia praying for the following reliefs:- “a). That a writ in the nature of mandamus may very kindly be issued thereby directing the respondents to grant pension to the petitioner from the due date with all consequential benefits alongwith interest for delayed payment. b) That a writ in the nature of mandamus may very kindly be issued thereby directing the respondents to count the contract service of the petitioner for the purpose of pension, seniority and other consequential benefits.” 2. Facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2026:HHC:36672 that the petitioner was initially appointed as a Pharmacist through the Rogi Kalyan Samiti on contract basis on 01.07.2011 in PHC, Jarol. He served there as such up to 02.07.2014 and as from 03.07.2014 onwards, the services of the petitioner were converted from RKS to Government contract. He served in this capacity from 03.07.2014 to 16.06.2017 and with effect from 17.06.2017, the services of the petitioner were regularized in the Health and Family Welfare Department, Mandi, District, Mandi, HP. The petitioner superannuated on 31.05.2025, having rendered more than 8 years and 3 months of service. However, after his superannuation, the petitioner has been denied pension. Feeling aggrieved, he has approached this Court. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner drew the attention of this Court to Annexure P-6, which is the copy of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No. 9084 of 2023, titled Ravinder Singh Rana vs. State of H.P. & Others, decided on 18.12.2023 along with other connected matters. Learned Counsel submitted that in terms of the law laid down in the said judgment, the contractual service rendered by an incumbent has to be treated as qualifying service for the purpose of pension in light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to therein in State of H.P. & Others vs. Sheela Devi, SLP (C) No. 10399 of 2020, decided on 07.08.2023. Learned Counsel submitted that herein the services of the petitioner were converted to contract from RKS on 3 2026:HHC:36672 03.07.2014. The petitioner retired on 31.05.2025, meaning thereby that as from the date when his services were converted on contractual basis, he has rendered more than 10 years of service, i.e. contractual service along with regular service. He, thus submitted that in these circumstances, denial of pension to the petitioner is not justified. 4. On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General has submitted that in the present case, the petitioner was initially appointed through the Rogi Kalyan Samiti. His services were converted to Government contract on 03.07.2014. He submitted that the conversion of services of the petitioner to Government contract was unlike any incumbent, who is appointed as per the Recruitment and Promotion Rules on contractual basis in a Government Department. He, thus submitted that the judgment being relied upon by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is of no assistance. Learned Additional Advocate General argued that from the date of his regularization, as the petitioner had not put in more than 10 years of service, he was not entitled for the grant of pension and the same has thus been rightly not released in his favour by the department. 5. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and having perused the pleadings as well as the documents appended therewith, this Court is of the considered view that denial of pension to the petitioner in the facts of the case is not justified. Hon'ble Co- 4 2026:HHC:36672 ordinate Bench of this Court, by placing reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of H.P. & Another vs. Sheela Devi (supra), has been pleased to hold and reiterate that contractual service is to be treated as qualifying service, for the purpose of pension along with regular service rendered by an incumbent. This contractual service is not qualified with any rider that only then the contractual service can be considered as qualifying service in case a person is appointed on contract basis as per the Recruitment and Promotion Rules. In fact, now there are judgments to the effect that even the work-charge period in the case of daily wagers, etc./Class- IV employees, has to be treated as qualifying service along with the regular service rendered by an incumbent for the purpose of pensionary benefits. 6. In the present case, the petitioner initially served as a Pharmacist upon being appointed as such by the Rogi Kalyan Samiti. This appointment of his was in terms of Annexure P-1, which demonstrates that even the appointment of the petitioner through Rogi Kalyan Samiti against the post of Pharmacist was on contract basis. The engagement of the petitioner as a Pharmacist through RKS was also by the Health and Family Welfare Department, Himachal Pradesh, as is evident from Annexure P-1. After having served in the said capacity up to 02.07.2014, the services of the petitioner were placed under the Government contract with effect from 03.07.2014 in terms of Annexure P-2, office 5 2026:HHC:36672 order dated 02.07.2014. Thereafter, the subsequent services rendered by the petitioner on contract basis were in his capacity as a person rendering contractual service to the Government. This subsequently culminated into his regularization in terms of Annexure P-3 with effect from 17.06.2017 and he retired as such on 31.05.2025. 7. Therefore, in light of the fact that as from 03.07.2014, the petitioner had served the respondent State on Government contract up to 17.06.2017 and thereafter on regular basis till the date of his superannuation on 31.5.2025, the contractual period as from 03.70.2014 to 17.06.2017 has to be treated as qualifying service along with regular service. 8. This Court is not making any observation that the service rendered by the petitioner on contract basis through RKS has to be treated as qualifying service. All that this Court is holding is that once the services of the petitioner were placed under Government contract with effect from 03.07.2014, then the service rendered by the petitioner in this capacity cannot be ignored for being treated as qualifying service along with regular service for the purpose of pension. 9. Accordingly, in light of the above discussion, this writ petition is allowed. Respondents are directed to treat Government contract service rendered by the petitioner with effect from 03.07.2014 along with his regular service as qualifying service for 6 2026:HHC:36672 the purpose of pension and release pension in his favour from the due date with consequential benefits. Regular pension be released in favour of the petitioner from the month of October, 2026. Arrears be paid within three months from today. In case, arrears are cleared within the said period, then the same shall not entail any interest, failing which, arrears amount shall entail simple interest @ 6% per annum from the date of the delayed payment. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge August 27 , 2026 (narender)