Kuldeep Singh Vs the State of Hp and Others

¶1

2026:HHC:6534

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶3

CWP No. 9484 of 2024

¶4

Decided on: 10.03.2026

¶5

Kuldeep Singh …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others … Respondents Coram

¶6

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge.

¶7

Whether approved for reporting?¹ Yes _____________________________________________________ For the petitioner : Mr. Anil Bansal, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. R.P. Singh, Deputy Advocate General for respondents-State. : Mr. Rangil Singh, Advocate for respondent No. 5. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral)

¶8

By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has inter alia

¶9

prayed for the following relief:-

¶10

“(i) Issue a writ of mandamus directed the respondent authorities to count the six months of service period of the petitioner on part time basis/whole time contingent basis for the purpose to provide pensionary benefits after completion of 10 years qualifying service for the purpose of pensionary benefits as required under CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as this Hon'ble Court.”

¶11

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

¶12

2

¶13

2026:HHC:6534 2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition

¶14

are that the petitioner was initially engaged as a Part Time Water Carrier on 14.01.1999, on the basis of recommendations of the Deputy Commissioner, Dharamshala, as is evident from Annexure P-1 appended with the petition. The petitioner continued to serve as such till his services were converted to a Whole Time Water Contingent Worker vide Annexure P-3, on 28.08.2012. Thereafter, the petitioner was promoted w.e.f. 15.09.2012, as a Class IV Peoncum-Chowkidar on regular basis, in terms of Annexure P-6 and he continued to serve as such till his superannuation on 31.01.2022. As on the date, when the petitioner retired from service, he had 9 years, 4 months and 16 days of regular service. On account of the fact that the petitioner did not have a minimum 10 years of regular service, he has been denied the pension and hence this petition has been preferred.

¶15

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner served the respondent-Department as a Water Carrier on part time basis from 14.01.1999 up to 28.08.2012. He further submitted that though during this period, nomenclature of the post of the petitioner was that of a Part Time Water Carrier, but fact of the matter is that the petitioner used to perform his duties during the entire school hours. Learned Counsel further submitted that the

¶16

3

¶17

2026:HHC:6534

¶18

act of the respondents of not taking into consideration more than 12

¶19

years service rendered by the petitioner as a Part Time Water Carrier so as to make good the shortfall of about five and half months to render him eligible to receive pension, is not sustainable in the eyes of law, as the same resulted in grave hardship to the petitioner, who has been denied the pension despite having served the Department since 14.01.1999 up to 31.01.2022, initially on part time basis, then as Whole Time Contingent Paid worker and thereafter, on promotion. Learned Counsel for the petitioner referred to the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Sunder Singh vs. State of Himachal Pradesh (Civil Appeal No. 6309 of 2017) and Civil Appeal No. 4792 of 2022, titled as Balo Devi vs. State of H.P. and others and submitted that in these two cases, for the purpose of an incumbent to be eligible to receive pension, five years of service rendered on daily wage basis has been ordered to be considered as one year service for rendering a class IV employee eligible to receive pension by adding the said period to the number of years rendered by him in the service of the Department on regular basis. He submitted that if this analogy is adopted in this case, then because the petitioner had put in more than 10 years of service as a Water Carrier, though termed as Part Time Water Carrier, he shall also get additional two years, which if added to 9 years and 4 months regular

¶20

4

¶21

2026:HHC:6534 service period rendered by the petitioner, make him eligible for the

¶22

grant of pension.

¶23

On the other hand, learned Deputy Advocate General submitted that the petitioner was appointed as a Part Time Water Carrier on hourly basis and he used to perform as such for four hours a day, as is mentioned in the reply. He further submitted that after the services of the petitioner were converted to a Whole Time Contingent Paid worker, vide order dated 28.08.2012, he joined as such on 01.09.2012 and thereafter, the petitioner was promoted as a Class-IV Peon-cum-Chowkidar w.e.f. 15.09.2012. He submitted that the petitioner superannuated on 31.01.2022 and thus, rendered only 9 years, 4months and 16 days regular service and for want of 10 years of regular service, he is not entitled for the grant of pension. Learned Deputy Advocate General also submitted that the judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Sunder Singh vs. State of H.P. and other (Civil Appeal No.6309 of 2017) and Balo Devi vs. State of H.P. and others (Civil AppealNo.4792 of 2022), being relied upon by the petitioner, are of no assistance to him for the reason that in both cases supra, the petitioners were serving on daily wage basis before their regularization whereas in the present case, the petitioner was serving as a Part Time Water Carrier before his promotion on regular basis. He further submitted that there was

¶24

5

¶25

2026:HHC:6534 a qualitative difference between the services rendered by a daily wage worker and a part time worker. During the course of day, in comparison to the service hours of other incumbents, the petitioner used to serve as a part time Water Carrier only for four hours a day. He submitted that in this backdrop, as the Department has rightly not granted the pension to the petitioner because the petitioner does not fulfill the eligibility criteria, this petition being devoid of any merit, deserves dismissal.

¶26

I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and also carefully gone through the pleadings as well as documents appended therewith.

¶27

In fact, Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in CWP No. 3310 of 2011, titled as Smt. Leela Devi vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, decided on 12.12.2011 and other connected matter has been inter alia pleased to hold that a Part Time Water Carrier in continuous service of eight years with 240 days in a calendar year as a daily wager after 10 years of regular service shall be appointed on regular basis as a Class-IV employee. The relevant portion of this judgment is quoted herein below:-

¶28

“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

¶29

6

¶30

2026:HHC:6534

¶31

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 15 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 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:

7

2026:HHC:6534

(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.

¶36

(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.

¶37

(iii)

¶38

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 16 be for counting 240 days in the year concerned for the purpose of appointment as a regular Class-IV employee.

¶39

(iv)

¶40

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.

¶41

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.”

¶42

In light of the said judgment, the petitioner herein was entitled for regularization/promotion, upon completion of 10 years of

¶43

8

¶44

2026:HHC:6534

¶45

part time service. In terms of the facts narrated herein above, the

¶46

petitioner was converted to a Whole Time Contingent Paid Worker not after 10 years but after 12 years of part time service and he was entitled for regularization in terms of the above mentioned judgment of the Hon’ble Division Bench after completion of 10 years of service as a Part Time Water Carrier. That being the case, as the respondents denied the right of regularization to the petitioner upon completion of 10 years of service as a Part Time Water Carrier, more so, in light of the fact that it is not in dispute that as a Part Time Water Carrier, the petitioner had put in more than 240 days in each calendar year, he cannot be made to suffer for this act of omission of the Department. If the petitioner had been regularized/promoted as a Class-IV employee upon completion of 10 years of service as a Part Time Water Carrier, he would have been eligible to receive the pension. The delay in his regularisation/promotion, by more than two years, has led to a situation where the petitioner has been denied pension for want of 10 years of service post regularization.

¶47

As the petitioner, cannot be made to suffer for the acts of omission of the Department, this petition is disposed of by holding that the act of the respondents of not regularizing/ promoting the petitioner as a Class-IV employee in terms of the judgment of Hon’ble Division Bench is held to be bad in law. The

¶48

9

¶49

2026:HHC:6534 petitioner is held entitled for regularization/promotion as a Class-IV employee upon completion of 10 years of service as a Part Time Water Carrier. It is further directed that the Department shall confer notional regularization/promotion upon the petitioner without any financial benefits etc. from the date he completes 10 years of service as a Part Time Water Carrier to make the petitioner eligible for pension. The respondents are directed to grant pension to the petitioner in accordance with law as from the date of his superannuation by treating him eligible for grant of pension from the said date.

¶50

It is clarified that the period of service post regularization after 10 years of service, working as a Part Time Water Carrier, shall be taken into consideration only for the purpose of eligibility of the petitioner to receive pension and nothing more. In other words, the petitioner shall be granted pension by construing that he served for 10 years as a regular/promoted employee and nothing more.

¶51

Respondents are also directed to release pension to the petitioner from the due date. Arrears be cleared within three months, failing which, the same shall entail interest @ 6% per annum from the date of judgment. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.

¶52

10

¶53

2026:HHC:6534 (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge

¶54

March 10, 2026 ( narender )

Kuldeep Singh v. the State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kuldeep Singh v. the 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sanjay Kumar Vs the State of Hp and Others

Prem Lata Vs the State of Hp and Others

Hans Raj Vs the State of Hp and Others

Nirmala Devi Vs State of Hp

Ramesh Chand Vs the Hrtc and Others

Neelam Kumari Vs the State of Hp and Others