( 2026:HHC:16314 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWPOA No.669 of 2020 Decided on: 11th May, 2026 Lekh Ram .......Petitioner versus State of H.P. and others ...Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr.Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner: Dr.Lalit Kumar Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr.Vishwa Deep Sharma, Additional Advocate General. Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge (Oral) The petitioner, by way of present petition, has prayed for the following substantive reliefs:- “(a) That the impugned communication/letter dated 23.01.2017 issued by the respondent No.3 whereby the claim of the applicant for the benefits of the judgment of Hon'ble High Court delivered in CWP No. 5444/2010 dated 28.09.2011 (Annexure A-8) has been rejected may kindly be set aside and quashed. (b) That the respondents may kindly be directed to count the entire length of service of the applicant w.e.f. March, 1988 towards all pensionary benefits. (c) That the respondents may kindly be directed to grant the increments and other service benefits to the applicant after counting the period spent on part time basis for the purpose of qualifying service and he may be given all monitory benefits which was due and payable to him alongwith 9% interest.” 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? ( 2026:HHC:16314 ) 2 2. The facts which emerge from the pleadings, are that the petitioner was appointed vide office order dated 19.12.1987 as Part Time Water Carrier and joined in Government Primary School, Nehara, Tehsil and District Shimla on 01.03.1988. Thereafter, as per seniority position, his services were converted as Whole Time Contingent Paid employee on 05.07.1997 and thereafter on 17.01.1988, he was promoted as regular Class-IV employee (Peon-cum- Chowkidar). The petitioner has now retired from service on 31.03.2011. 3. The claim of the petitioner in the writ petition is that the entire period of his service from the initial date of his appointment as Part Time Water Carrier be counted for the purpose of pension and other service benefits. It has been averred that the petitioner has worked without any break or interruption since 01.03.1988 till his retirement on 31.03.2011. Earlier, the petitioner had approached this Court by filing CWP No.4741 of 2013-D, titled, Lekh Ram vs. State of H.P and another, which was disposed of on 11.07.2013, with a direction to the respondent to decide the ( 2026:HHC:16314 ) 3 representation within eight weeks. Vide office order dated 24.02.2012, respondent No.4 had rejected the representation of the petitioner by observing that the benefit of services rendered by him as Whole Time basis has already been given to him and hisrequest for grant of increments and other benefits from March, 1988 and to consider the period rendered as Part Time Water Carrier for the purpose of qualifying service w.e.f. March, 1988, cannot be accepted. 4. The petitioner did not challenge the order dated 24.02.2014 and got issued legal notice dated 18.10.2016 (Annexure A-7), which came to be rejected on 23.01.2017 (Annexure A-8), and has now been assailed by way of the present petition. In the legal notice reference of judgment passed by a coordinate Bench of this court in CWP No.5444 of 2010, titled, Jeet Ram vs. State of H.P. and others was made and while rejecting the claim, respondent No.4 had given the reference of earlier order dated 24.02.2014 passed by the authority and had mentioned that the case of the petitioner is not similar to that of Shri Jeet Ram (supra). 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that this Court has already adjudicated the similar issue and has given direction to count the entire period of service ( 2026:HHC:16314 ) 4 rendered by an employee as Part Time Water Carrier and thus the petitioner is also entitled to the similar benefits. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed on record the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No….of 2023, SLP (CIVIL) No.10399/2020), titled, State of Himachal Pradesh and another vs. Sheela Devi to support his contention. 7. Respondents No.1, 2 and 4 have filed reply through respondent No.2 and supported the decision taken by them. It has been averred that the period of Whole Time Contingent service w.e.f. 05.07.1997 has been counted and the services rendered by the petitioner as Part Time Water Carrier could not be treated as qualifying service for benefits, as he was engaged for 2½ hours, which was extended for four hours as per State Government instructions. It has further been averred that the period of service paid form contingency do not count as qualifying service for pension and as such, the claim of the petitioner has rightly been rejected. 8. So far as the judgment passed in Jeet Ram’s case (supra) is concerned, he was engaged as Part Time Water Carrier on 29.09.1997 and prior to this, he was working as Part Time Contingent paid-Sevadar-cum-Carpenter out of ( 2026:HHC:16314 ) 5 amalgamated fund of the college. However, in the case of the petitioner he was engaged as Part Time Water Carrier in the year 1988 and as per seniority, his services were converted as Whole Time Contingent Paid employee on 05.07.1997 and thereafter on 17.01.1988, he was promoted as regular Class- IV employee (Peon-cum-Chowkidar). The services rendered by the petitioner as Part Time Water Carrier have already been counted for the purpose of seniority and further, he was engaged for 2½ hours, which was extended for four hours as per State Government instructions and thus, he is not entitled for counting of his service as Part Time Water Carrier. 9. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record carefully. 10. Dr. Lalit K. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that once the coordinate Bench of this Court has already granted relief to count the services rendered by an employee as Part Time Water Carrier, the petitioner, who is similar situate, is also entitled to the similar benefits. However, it is relevant to mention here that a Division Bench of this court in CWP No.3310 of 2011, titled, Leela Devi vs. State of H.P and others alongwith connected matters has held that all those Part Time Water ( 2026:HHC:16314 ) 6 Carrier, who have completed 10 years of service as such, shall be converted to the status of Whole Time Contingent Employee on daily wage basis; and 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. The relevant paras of the judgment reads 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 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 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 ( 2026:HHC:16314 ) 7 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 be for counting 240 days in the year concerned for the 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. 3. The needful action, in the light of the above judgment, shall be taken by the competent authority, within a period of four months from the date of production of a copy of this judgment by the petitioner concerned before the Director, Elementary Education.” ( 2026:HHC:16314 ) 8 11. The Division Bench of this Court has only given direction to convert the status of all those Part Time Water Carriers, who had completed 10 years of service as such, to the status of Whole Time Contingent Employees on daily waged basis; such an employee who is 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. The intention of the Division Bench was only to convert the services of those Part Time Water Carriers, who had completed 10 years of service as Part Time Water Carrier to Whole Time Contingent Employee and had it been the intention to count the said service for the purpose of grant of pension and other service benefits, it could have straightway stated that the entire service be counted for the purpose of pension and other benefits and there was no need to convert the services first to Whole Time Contingent Paid employee and then to be appointed on regular basis. Therefore, in view of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court, the judgment passed by a Co- ordinate Bench is not correct interpretation of law. ( 2026:HHC:16314 ) 9 12. Dr.Lalit K. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that a coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No.9484 of 2024, titled, Kuldeep Singh vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others has also held that the period of service rendered as Part Time Water Carrier, has to be counted for pension. However, the import of the judgment is to convert the service of Part Time Water Carrier who had rendered 10 years’ service as Whole Time Contingent Paid Worker instead of 12 years, which was disentitling him to pension. Further the learned Single Judge has specifically mentioned in the judgment the earlier decision of the Division Bench with respect to regularizing the services after competition of 10 years service. If the judgment is read as a whole, the learned Single Judge after considering the judgment passed by a Division Bench of this Court in Leela Devi’s case (supra) has observed that the petitioner was entitled for conversion of his services from Part Time Water Carrier after 10 years’ service as Whole Time Contingent Paid Worker and thereafter to regularize his services after 10 years service as Whole Time Contingent Paid Worker. The Court has not come to the conclusion that the period of service as Part Time Water Carrier has to be counted ( 2026:HHC:16314 ) 10 for the purpose of grant of pension and other service benefits and if it is so then, there was no need to first convert the services to Whole Time Contingent Paid Worker and then to regularize the services after completion of 10 years service. 13. The judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sheela Devi’s case (supra) only refers that the period of contract service has to be counted for the purpose of grant of pension. It no-where states that the services rendered by an employee as Part Time Water Carrier has to be counted for the purpose of calculating the pension and other benefits. Learned counsel for the petitioner has laid much emphasis on the judgment passed by this Court in CWPOA No.195 of 2019, titled, Sheela Devi vs. State of H.P. and others, which judgment has been affirmed in the aforementioned decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court to contend that the services rendered prior to regularization in any capacity of work-charged employees, contingency paid fund employees, or non- pensionable establishment has to be counted towards qualifying service even if such service is not preceded by temporary or regular appointment in a pensionable establishment. This judgment no-where had an occasion to consider the period of part time services rendered by an ( 2026:HHC:16314 ) 11 employee, who had served as Part Time Water Carrier and rendered services only for 2½ hours in a day for the purpose of counting the said period for pension and other benefits. The Court has only noticed that the services rendered prior to regularization in any capacity of work-charged employees, contingency paid fund employees or non-pensionable establishment has to be counted towards qualifying service even if such service is not preceded by temporary or regular appointment in a pensionable establishment. In the case of the petitioner also, after converting his services into Whole Part Time Water Carrier, his service has been counted as per law and thereafter after completion of 10 years asWhole Time Contingent Paid Worker, his services were also regularized and thus, the claim put-forth by the petitioner that the services rendered by him as Part Time Water Carrier be also counted towards qualifying service, cannot be countenanced and the respondents have rightly rejected his claim. 14. The claim of the petitioner was rejected on 24.02.2014 and he has not challenged the said decision and conveniently laid challenge to the subsequent decision. Until the earlier decision dated 24.02.2014 is set at naught, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. ( 2026:HHC:16314 ) 12 15. Since there is no illegality having been committed by the respondents, while rejecting the claim of the petitioner, I do not find any merit in this petition and the same is accordingly dismissed.However, there shall be no orders as to costs. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. ( Jiya Lal Bhardwaj ) 11th May, 2026 Judge (naveen)