2026:HHC:5977 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 8847 of 2025 Decided on: 06.03.2026 Kewal Krishan …….Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and another … Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 _____________________________________________________ For the petitioner : Mr. Pushpinder K. Verma, Advocate vice Mr. Kul Bhushan Khajuria, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. R.P. Singh Deputy Advocate General. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) Rejoinder neither filed nor is intended to be filed. 2. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for the following relief:- “That in view of the facts and circumstances mentioned hereinabove in this writ petition, the writ petition may kindly be allowed and the respondent department may kindly be directed to grant the benefit of regular appointment to the petitioner from the date of his initial appointment i.e. 18.9.2006.” 3. In terms of the averments made in the writ petition, the petitioner was appointed as a Part Time Water Carrier vide order 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2026:HHC:5977 dated 18.09.2006. His services were converted to daily wage basis on 29.09.2015. Thereafter, his services were regularized vide order dated 02.07.2022 as a Class-IV Peon-cum-Chowkidar. The petitioner has approached this Court with the prayer that as he is a physically disabled person and was appointed under physically handicapped quota, his services be regularized from the date he was initially appointed as a Part Time Water Carrier. 4. On the other hand, the stand of the respondents-State is that the petitioner was appointed as a Part Time Water Carrier in the year 2006, in terms whereof, he was performing four hours duty per day. His services were converted on daily wage basis in terms of the policy of the State. It is further the stand of the State that the petitioner was appointed under Part Time Water Carrier Policy 2001 which gives preference to widows, women deserted by their husband and other destitute handicapped persons etc. but it is not as if the petitioner was offered appointment under the category of physically disabled persons. 5. Whereas learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that as the petitioner is a physically disabled person and was appointed by taking this fact into consideration, though on part time basis, therefore, he is entitled for regularization from the initial 3 2026:HHC:5977 date of his appointment as a Part Time Water Carrier, learned Deputy Advocate General has argued that because the petitioner was not appointed under the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 nor he was appointed against a post reserved for persons with physical disability, therefore, he is not entitled to the reliefs being prayed for, nor the judgments appended with the petition are applicable in the case of the petitioner. Learned Deputy Advocate has also argued that the appointment of the petitioner was under the Part Time Water Carrier’s Policy, in which, there was no reservation for physically disabled persons but certain marks were given to them, which does not make the post exclusively reserved for physically disabled persons. Accordingly, he submitted that as there is no merit in the present petition, the same be dismissed. 6. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and also carefully gone through the pleadings as well as documents appended therewith. 7. Though, the contention of the petitioner is that he was appointed under the quota reserved for physically disabled persons but he has not been able to demonstrate that indeed he was appointed against a post exclusively reserved for physically disabled 4 2026:HHC:5977 persons as a Part Time Water Carrier. It could not be disputed on behalf of the petitioner that under the Part Time Water Carrier’s Policy, there was no reservation for physically disabled persons and a person suffering with some physical disability was only entitled for some extra marks. This makes it clear that the appointment of the petitioner was not under the physically disabled quota and as he was appointed under the Part Time Water Carrier Policy in the year 2006, his services were later on converted on daily wage basis as per policy of the Government and subsequently were regularized, therefore, he is not entitled for relief of regularization of his services from the date of his initial appointment as a part time worker. The judgments being relied upon by the petitioner which are appended with the petition are of no assistance to the petitioner because therein the petitioners were appointed against the posts reserved for physically disabled persons. 8. In fact, this issue is no more res integra and this Court in CWP No. 238 of 2021, titled as Amar Singh vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, decided on 28.02.2026, has held that a person may be physically disabled, but who has been appointed as a Part Time Water Carrier under the Part Time Water Carrier Policy, is not entitled for regularization from initial date of his appointment on 5 2026:HHC:5977 part time basis in the light of the fact that he was not appointed against a post exclusively reserved for physically disabled persons. Therefore, as this Court finds no merit in the present petition, the same is accordingly dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge March 06, 2026 (narender)