Roop Ram Vs State of Hp and Others

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

CWP No.9057 of 2023

Date of Decision:10.10.2025

____________ ___________________________________________ Roop Ram …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?¹ For the Petitioner: Mr. A.K. Gupta and Ms. Babita Chauhan, Advocates. For the Respondents : Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C.Verma, Additional Advocate Generals and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for the respondents-State. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral):

¶5

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 under Gram Panchayat, Tikkar w.e.f. August 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.

¶6

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

¶7

1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶8

2

¶9

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:-

¶10

“ That the respondents may be ordered to bring services of the petitioner on contractual establishment w.e.f. 1.1.2020 with all benefits incidental thereof.”

¶11

3. 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 Guard under Gram Panchayat, Chewag w.e.f. August 2007 and he had completed 12 years of service with 240 days in each calendar

¶12

3

¶13

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.

¶14

4. Though, Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, while referring to the reply, attempted to argue that petitioner herein though was engaged as Water Guard under Gram Panchayat, Cheweg w.e.f August .2007, but he had not completed 240 days in calendar year, 2007, rather he worked with 240 days continuously in

¶15

4

¶16

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. 5. 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 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.

¶17

5

¶18

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.

¶19

(Sandeep Sharma), Judge October 10, 2025 manjit

Roop Ram v. State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Roop Ram 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

Naresh Kumar and Others Vs the State of Hp and Others

Savitri Devi Vs the State of Hp and Others

Vivek Modgil and Another Vs State of Hp and Others

Himani Dhiman and Another Vs the State of Hp and Others

Ajeet Singh Diwan and Others Vs State of Hp and Others

Malkiat Singh Vs the State of Hp and Others