2026:HHC:3909 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.6570 of 2024 Decided on: 24.02.2026 Pawan Kumar … Petitioner Versus The State of Himachal Pradesh & others … Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 ____________________________________________________ _ For the petitioner: M/s Y.K. Thakur and Bhanu Verma, Advocates. For the respondents: Mr. Rajpal Thakur, Additional Advocate General, for respondents No.1, 2, 4 and 5. Mr. Shiv Pal Manhans, Senior Panel Counsel, for respondent No.3. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs:- “a. The petitioner may please be regularized from the dates of his initial appointment i.e. 20/11/2008 and the period rendered in service on contract followed by regular may please be counted towards the length of his services for all consequential benefits. b. All the consequential benefits viz., grant of the regular pay scale, and pay for the contractual period, with effect from 2008 till the date of regularization. c. Correction of revision of pay band in 2008 and 2016 and considering the contractual period of service of the petitioner for determining the pension in terms of the Judgment rendered by the Hon'ble High Court of HP in 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2026:HHC:3909 Sheela Devi VS State of HP & Ors. which stands upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) No. 10399/ of 2020 decided on 7/08/2023 titled as State of HP & Ors. V/S Sheela Devi & Ors. may please be awarded /granted/approved in favour of the petitioner.” 2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the present petition are that the petitioner was appointed as a driver on contract basis vide communication dated 15.11.2008 (Annexure P-1/B), in the Office of Child Development Project Officer, Rait, District Kangra, H.P., for one year. The appointment of the petitioner on contract basis in terms of this communication was on the basis of recommendations of a Committee for selection of contractual drivers in the Department. The petitioner continued to serve as such, though in terms of the appointment letter, his initial appointment was only for one year. The continuous service of the petitioner, which commenced in the month of November, 2008, culminated into his regularization vide appointment letter dated 28.05.2015 (Annexure P-1/C). In terms of this communication, services of the petitioner were regularized as a driver in the Office of Child Development Officer, Rait, District Kangra, H.P. Thereafter, the petitioner has been continuously serving the Department as such. The contention of the petitioner is that as his appointment was on contract basis, on the basis of recommendations of the Committee for selection of contractual drivers in the Department and it was not 3 2026:HHC:3909 a backdoor entry and further, as this contractual appointment culminated into regularization without any break, therefore, service rendered by the petitioner on contract basis is entitled to be taken into consideration for all intents and purposes, including seniority, pay scale and post retiral benefits etc. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that recently in the case of a person similarly situated as the petitioner, Hon’ble Coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No.6603 of 2024, titled Anil Kumar Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others, decided on 21.11.2025, has been pleased to allow the petition and following relief has been granted to the petitioner therein:- “Consequently, in view of discussions made hereinabove as well as law taken into consideration, this Court finds merit in the present petition and accordingly, the same is allowed. Respondents are directed to take into consideration the services rendered by the petitioner prior to his regularization for the purpose of continuity of service, meaning thereby, petitioner shall be deemed to be in regular service from the date of his initial appointment, but he shall not be entitled to actual benefits for the aforesaid period, till his regularization, rather service for the afore period shall only be taken into consideration for the purpose of seniority as well as retiral benefits. Since petitioner has been fighting for his rightful claim for quite long, this Court hopes and trusts that needful shall be done expeditiously, preferably within two months from today. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.” 4 2026:HHC:3909 4. On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General submitted that the initial appointment of the petitioner was on contract basis, which culminated into regularization. There was no holding-out on behalf of the Department that post regularization, the contract service rendered by the petitioner shall be taken into consideration for conferring any benefit upon the petitioner. He further argued that otherwise also the petitioner is not entitled for any relief, for the reason that he approached the Court belatedly in the year 2024, though his services were regularized in the year 2015. He, thus, submitted that as the petitioner is not entitled for any relief, the present petition be dismissed. 5. I have heard Counsel for the parties and have also carefully gone through the pleadings as well as the documents appended therewith. 6. It is not in dispute that appointment of the petitioner on contract basis was on the basis of the recommendations of a Committee for selection of contractual drivers, as is evident from Annexure Ext.P-1/B. Therefore, it is evident that the entry of the petitioner into service on contract basis was not a backdoor entry. In fact, Annexure P-1 demonstrates that a process was initiated by the Department for recruitment of drivers on contract basis and as the petitioner applied for the said post, he was duly invited for selection process in terms of Annexure P-1. Further, in terms of Annexure P- 5 2026:HHC:3909 1/C, dated 28.05.2015, services of the petitioner were regularized and this was done on the recommendations of a Departmental Screening Committee, which assessed the suitability of candidates for regularization, who were serving the Department on contract basis. It is also not in dispute that after initial appointment of the petitioner on contract basis till his regularization, there was no break in service and he continued to serve the Department continuously. 7. A perusal of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No.6603 of 2024, titled Anil Kumar Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. (supra) also demonstrates that the petitioner therein was similarly situated as the present petitioner and he was also appointed on contract basis in the same Department and his services were subsequently regularized in the same manner as were the services of the petitioner. Incidently, the said petitioner had also approached the Court in the year 2024 only, like the present petitioner. 8. Therefore, in light of the facts narrated hereinabove, as the contract services of the petitioner culminated into his regularization and it could not be demonstrated by the respondents that appointment of the petitioner on contract basis was in violation of the Recruitment Rules or was a backdoor entry, the petitioner is entitled for his contract service, to be counted for the purpose of 6 2026:HHC:3909 seniority and other benefits, post regularization, more so in the light of the judgment of Hon’ble Coordinate Bench in CWP No.6603 of 2024, titled Anil Kumar Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others, decided on 21.11.2025. 9. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of with the direction that the service rendered by the petitioner on contract basis before his regularization be taken into consideration for the purpose of seniority as also pay fixation etc., but the same shall be notional, as till the date of filing of the petition and as from the date of filing of the petition, actual benefits be conferred upon the petitioner. If, on the strength of the seniority that has been granted to the petitioner by this Court, the petitioner is entitled for any promotions etc., then the said promotions shall not unsettle the promotions, if any, granted to other incumbents and the promotions be conferred upon the petitioner by creating superannuary post(s), so that other incumbents are not disturbed. 10. With these observations the petition stands disposed of. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge February 24, 2026 (Rishi)