IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIML.A 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 reportin g?1 _____________________________t_______________________ _

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 H 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?

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 pleas.e be awarded /granted/approved in favour of the petitioner.”

2. Brief facts necessary for the ad judication 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. uThe 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 Hhis 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 a backdoor entry and further, as this contractual appointment culminated into regularization without any break, thePrefore, 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 Vuersus 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 g 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 h