( 2026:HHC:10881 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 12620 of 2024 Decided on: 08.04.2026 Ashok Kumar …..Petitioner. -Versus- The 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. Pawanish Kumar Shukla, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, Additional Advocate General, for respondents No. 1 to 4. Mr. Rangil Singh, Advocate, for respondent No. 5. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that the petitioner before this Court is a retired employee, who retired from Government Senior Secondary School, Thanakalan, District Una, H.P. as a Lab Technician (Class-III) on 30.04.2021. His case is that he was initially engaged as a Part Time Water Carrier on 30.03.1998. After serving for more than thirteen years as a Part Time Water Carrier, his services were converted into Whole Timer/Work Charge basis as a Peon w.e.f. 07.07.2011. Thereafter, his services were regularized as Class-IV employee 1 Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. ( 2026:HHC:10881 ) (Peon) vide Office Order dated 23.02.2012 and he was posted as such in Government Senior Secondary School, Thanakalan, District Una, H.P. Vide office order dated 06.03.2017, the petitioner was promoted against the post of Lab Technician (Class-III) and he superannuated as such on 30.04.2021. The petitioner has been denied pension on the ground that as from the date when his services were converted as a Whole Timer in terms of Annexure P- 2, dated 07.07.2011, he did not complete 10 years of service as up to the date of his superannuation. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the judgment dated 12.12.2011, passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in CWP No. 3310 of 2011-D, titled as Smt. Leela Devi Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others and other connected matters and submitted that in terms of the said judgment, the petitioner ought to have been regularized as a Class-IV employee upon completion of 10 years of Part Time Service. He further submitted that as the petitioner was appointed on Part Time basis on 30.03.1998, had his services been regularized in the month of March, 2008, then he would have completed more than 10 years of service as on the date when he retired. Accordingly, he prayed that the respondents be directed to regularize the services of the petitioner upon completion of 10 years of Part Time service and grant pension to him, as from the year 2008, he had completed more than 10 years of service up to the date of his superannuation. 3. ( 2026:HHC:10881 ) 3. On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General submitted that as the petitioner, after his regularization, did not complete ten years of service, therefore, he is not entitled for any relief. Learned Additional Advocate General, by referring to the reply filed the State, submitted that the services of the petitioner were converted into Whole Timer/Work Charge basis on 07.07.2011 and thereafter, vide office order dated 23.02.2012, his services were converted as a regular Class-IV employee (Peon). Vide office order dated 06.03.2017, the petitioner was promoted as a Lab Technician (Class-III employee). Learned Additional Advocate General thus submitted that as the petitioner has rendered only 9 years, 2 months and 18 days regular service prior to his retirement and as he has not completed 10 years of regular service, therefore, pension has been rightly denied to him. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also carefully gone through the pleadings as well as the documents appended therewith. 5. In terms of the reply of the respondent-State, it is not in dispute that the Department has taken into consideration the service rendered by the petitioner as Whole Time Peon alongwith regular service rendered by him both against Class-III and Class-IV posts and has denied pension to him on the ground that even by including all these periods, he 4. ( 2026:HHC:10881 ) was not completing 10 years’ service so as to render him eligible for grant of pension. 6. However, this Court is of the considered view that while rejecting the case of the petitioner for grant of pension, the Department has ignored to take into consideration the judgment of this Court in Smt. Leela Devi’s case (supra), in which, the Hon’ble Division Bench has been pleased to hold as under:- “……2. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners contended that the petitioners shall be treated as eligible for appointment in terms of the Recruitment and Promotion Rules for the post of regular Class-IV employees. We are afraid that this contention cannot be appreciated, for the simple reason that the petitioners have not been appointed as Part Time Workers. They have been appointed under a Scheme for appointment of Part Time Water Carriers through the Panchayat Raj Institutions. However, the stand that they will be made Whole Time Contingent Employees in accordance with their seniority and availability of vacancy, which would necessarily vary from district to district, cannot be appreciated, in view of the undisputed general policy available in 15 the State that any Part Time Water Workers after completion of 10 years of service as such, is made Whole Time Contingent Employee on daily waged basis and 5. ( 2026:HHC:10881 ) on such continuous service of 8 years with 240 days in a year is made a regular class-IV employee. Therefore, Part Time Water Carriers cannot be put to a more disadvantageous position. This 10 years part time, 8 years daily wage and then regular, will also necessarily ensure the uniformity irrespective of the fortuitous status of Part Time Water Carrier getting employment in a particular District where he would be getting accelerated promotion. Therefore, all these writ petitions are disposed of directing the respondents/competent authority to consider the cases of the petitioners as follows: (i) All those Part Time Water Carriers, who have completed 10 years of service as such, shall be converted to the status of Whole Time Contingent Employees on daily waged basis. (ii) Such an employee in continuous service of 8 years with 240 days in a year as daily wager after 10 years of part time service shall be appointed on regular basis as Class-IV employee. (iii) However, it is made clear that in the case of any petitioner, who has completed 10 years of part time service, on conferment of daily wager status, shall not be entitled to any retrospective wages. The entitlement shall only 16 be for counting 240 days in the year concerned for the 6. ( 2026:HHC:10881 ) purpose of appointment as a regular Class-IV employee. (iv) The Director (Education) shall also look into the grievance of the petitioners that they have been paid lesser wages than those appointed under the 1996 Policy and required steps shall be taken for redressal of such grievances.” 7. As the petitioner herein was appointed as a Part Time Water Carrier on 30.03.1998, he had a right to be conferred regularization upon completion of 10 years of service in the month of March, 2008. Had the regularization been conferred upon him in the year 2008, then obviously, he would have been entitled for pension, as from the year 2008 up to 30.04.2021, obviously, he would have completed more than ten years of service. Therefore, denial of such benefit to the petitioner is not justifiable in the eyes of law. The judgment passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court is binding on all, including the respondent-Department and the petitioner is entitled for the benefit thereof, at least for the purpose of pension. 8. Accordingly, in the light of the above discussion, this petition is allowed by holding that the act of the respondents of not conferring regularization upon the petitioner upon completion of ten years of service as a Part Time Water Carrier is bad in law. Respondents are directed to regularize the petitioner as Class-IV employee upon completion 7. ( 2026:HHC:10881 ) of 10 years’ service as a Part Time Water Carrier, notionally only, and treat said period alongwith the period while the petitioner served the Department as a Whole Time Peon as also regular Peon and regular Lab Technician till the date of his superannuation, for the purpose of pension and as the petitioner completes more than 10 years’ service by taking into consideration these periods, it is directed that the pension be paid to the petitioner from the due date. 9. However, it is clarified that the above periods which this Court has ordered to be taken into consideration to assess the eligibility of the petitioner for pensionary purpose, shall not confer upon him any other benefit, except eligibility for the receipt of pension. Pension shall be granted to the petitioner by construing that he has completed 10 years’ service only. Regular pension be paid to the petitioner from the month of June, 2026. Arrears be cleared within three months from today. With the aforesaid observations, the petition stands disposed of, so also pending miscellaneous applications, if any. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge April 08, 2026 (bhupender)