Allowed¶17

Surender Singh v. State of Hp and Others

Himachal Pradesh HC13 Oct 2025CWP/7627/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single-judge oral writ decision of the Himachal Pradesh High Court (Sandeep Sharma, J., 13.10.2025, CWP No.7627 of 2024) granting a daily-wage part-time Water Guard contractual appointment as Pump Attendant in Jal Shakti Vibhag retrospectively from the due date. Key terms: Water Guard, Jal Rakshak, Pump Attendant, contractual establishment, due date, 12 years service, 240 days in each calendar year, 31.12.2019, mandays chart, seniority, letters dated 27.8.2020 and 26.09.2020, Gram Panchayat, IPH Division Rohru, R&P Rules, State of Himachal Pradesh.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the respondents to grant contractual appointment to the petitioner as Pump Attendant from the date he completed 12 years of service, i.e., 01.01.2020, as done in the case of the other similarly situated person; pending applications, if any, disposed of.

Surender Singh Vs State of Hp and Others — Himachal Pradesh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶17

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, having completed 12 years of service as part-time Water Guard with 240 days in each calendar year upto 31.12.2019, was entitled to be brought on contractual establishment as Pump Attendant w.e.f. 01.01.2020 (the due date) rather than w.e.f. 1.10.2020, with all incidental benefits including seniority. +1 more

¶8

Court's answer

In the reply filed in these proceedings, the respondents virtually admitted the claim of the petitioner.

¶9

Ratio / Principle

The Additional Advocate General's contention that the petitioner had not completed 240 days in calendar year 2007 and could therefore be brought on contractual establishment only w.e.f. 1.10.2020 is totally contrary to the mandays chart placed on record by the respondents themselves.

¶14

Key takeaways

As per the mandays chart, the petitioner had been working as Water Guard under the Gram Panchayat w.e.f. 13.6.2007, and can easily be said to have completed 12 years' service with 240 days in each calendar year upto 31.12.2019.ratio¶14
Government's letter dated 27.8.2020 conveyed approval to induct Jal Rakshaks who had completed 240 days in the calendar year on 31.12.2019; consequently, the 12-year qualifying period fell to be counted preceding 31.12.2019.ratio¶17
The petitioner, having completed 12 years of service with 240 days in each calendar year upto 31.12.2019, was required to be brought on contractual establishment w.e.f. 01.01.2020 and not 1.10.2020.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

CWP allowed (oral judgment, Sandeep Sharma, J.). Petitioner, engaged as a part-time Water Guard through the Gram Panchayat under IPH Division Rohru in 2007 (mandays chart showing working w.e.f. 13.6.2007), completed 12 years of service with 240 days in each calendar year upto 31.12.2019. Under Government policy conveyed vide communications dated 27.8.2020 and 26.09.2020, Jal Rakshaks/Water Guards completing 240 days in each calendar year on 31.12.2019 were to be inducted as Pump Attendants on contract basis, subject to the eligibility criteria of the R&P Rules. The respondents virtually admitted the claim in their reply, but inducted the petitioner as Pump Attendant on contractual establishment only w.e.f. 1.10.2020, adversely affecting his seniority. Held: the 12-year period was to be counted preceding 31.12.2019, and the petitioner was required to be brought on contractual establishment w.e.f. 01.01.2020, not 1.10.2020; respondents directed to grant contractual appointment from 01.01.2020, as done for the other similarly situated person.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

CWP No.7627 of 2024 Date of Decision: 13.10.2025

¶3

____________________________ Surender Singh State of Himachal Pradesh	______________________________ ……. Versus & Ors. …....Re	___________ ..Petitioner spondents
Coram
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sande Whether approved for repo	ep Sharma, Judge. rting?
For the Petitioner: Ms.	Babita Chauhan, Advocate.
For the respondents:Mr. Kah Adv	Anup Rattan, Advocate Genera ol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, ocates General with Mr. Ravi	l, Mr. Rajan Additional Chauhan &
Mr. Gen	Anish Banshtu, Deputy eral.	Advocates
_____________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J .(Oral)_	_________________________________	____________

¶4

Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. A.K. Gupta, learned counsel representing the petitioner, is that though petitioner herein, who was engaged as Water Guard through Gram Panchayat, under IPG Division Rohru w.e.f. 01.07.2007, had competed 12 years of service with 240 days in each calendar year upto 31.12.2019, but yet he was not appointed/ inducted in Jal Shakti Vibhag on contractual basis as Pump attendant w.e.f 01.01.2020 in terms of policy decision taken by the Government of Himachal Pradesh.

¶5

Precisely, the facts of the case as emerge from record are that petitioner herein was engaged as a part time Water Guard in

¶6

¶7

January, 2007. In terms of policy decision taken by the Government of Himachal Pradesh, services of the petitioner were liable to be brought on contractual establishment as Pump Attendant after his having completed 12 years of service, but such benefit was not given to the petitioner from due date. Though, petitioner herein had completed 10 years of service with 240 days in each calendar year on 31.12.2019, but while extending benefit in terms of policy of Government, wherein it has been decided to bring the services of part time Water Guard on contractual establishment after their having completed 12 years of service on daily wage basis with 240 days in each calendar years, respondent appointed /inducted petitioner in Jal Shakti Vibhag on contractual basis as Pump Attendant w.e.f. 1.10.2020, instead 01.01.2020. In the afore background, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein for following main relief:-

¶8

“That the respondents may be ordered to bring services of the petitioner on contractual establishment w.e.f. 1.1.2020 as Pump Attendant since the petitioner completed 12 years service upto 31.12.2019, with all benefits incidental thereof.”

¶9

Pursuant to the notices issued in the instant proceedings, respondents have filed reply, wherein they have virtually admitted the claim of the petitioner. Careful perusal of aforesaid reply filed by the respondents clearly reveals that petitioner was appointed as Water

¶10

¶11

Guard under Gram Panchayat, Chewag w.e.f. August 2007 and he had completed 12 years of service with 240 days in each calendar year upto 31.12.2019, which fact is otherwise apparent from the mandays chart placed on record by the respondent-Department itself. As per respondent-State, Government vide letter dated 27.08.2020 conveyed the approval to induct Jal Rakshaks, who had completed 240 days in each calendar year on 31.12.2019 with further condition that they should fulfill eligibility criteria as per provisions of R&P Rules of Pump Attendant. Aforesaid decision was further conveyed to all the Superintending Engineers working under Jal Shakti Vibhag with allocation of posts. Though, taking note of aforesaid policy decision, petitioner came to be inducted on the post of Pump Attendant on contractual basis, but not from due date. Since petitioner had completed 12 years of service with 240 days in each calendar year w.e.f. 31.12.2019, he was required to be extended benefits in terms of communications dated 27.8.2020 and 26.09.2020 w.e.f. 01.01.2020. Though, petitioner herein has been brought to contractual establishment in terms of policy decision taken by the Government , but since he has been not given due and admissible benefits from due date, his seniority is going to be effected, as result thereof, petitioner is before this Court in the instant proceedings.

¶12

¶13

Though, Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate

¶14

General, while referring to the reply, attempted to argue that petitioner herein though was engaged as Water Guard through Gram Panchayat under IPH Division Rohru w.e.f August .2007, but he had not completed 240 days in calendar year, 2007, rather he worked with 240 days continuously in the year, 2008, and as such, he rightly came to be brought on contractual establishment w.e.f.1.10.2020, but his aforesaid claim is totally contrary to the mandays chart placed on record by the respondents themselves, which clearly suggests that petitioner had been working as Water Guard under Gram Panchayat, Cheweg w.e.f. 13.6.2007, if it is so, he can be easily said to have completed 12 years’ service with 240 days in each calendar year upto 31.12.2019.

¶15

Though at this stage, learned Additional Advocate General, while referring to communication dated 27.8.2020, attempted to argue that approval of Government for appointment of 372 eligible Jal Rakshaks to the post Pump Attendants (Class-IV) on contract basis, was received in the Department on 27.8.2020 and as such, no illegality can be said to have been committed by the respondents while granting afore benefit to the petitioner in the month of October, 2020. However, learned Additional Advocate General was unable to dispute that Government vide its letter dated 27.8.2020 had actually conveyed

¶16

¶17

the approval to induct Jal Rakshaks, who have completed 240 days in calendar year on 31.12.2019, if it is so, 12 years were to be counted preceding 31.12.2019. In the case at hand, petitioner, who was inducted as Water Guard under gram Panchayat, Tikkar w.e.f. 13.6.2007 completed 12 years of service with 240 days in each calendar year upto 31.12.2019 and as such, he was required to be brought on contractual establishment w.e.f.01.01.2020 not 1.10.2020. 6. Consequently, in view of the above, this Court finds merit in the present petition and accordingly same is allowed with a direction to the respondents to grant contractual appointment to the petitioner as Pump Attendant from the date, he completed 12 years service as has been done in the other similarly situate person i.e. 01.01.2020. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

¶18

October 13, 2025 (sunil)

¶19

(Sandeep Sharma), Judge

Surender Singh v. State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Surender Singh v. State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Himani Dhiman and Another Vs the State of Hp and Others

Roop Ram Vs State of Hp and Others

Ajeet Singh Diwan and Others Vs State of Hp and Others

Kamla Devi Vs State of Hp and Others

Reena Devi Vs the State of Hp and Others

Reema Devi Vs the State of Hp and Others