Service rendered on a contingent basis by a Part Time Water Carrier, following conversion from part-time status, must be included in the qualifying service calculation to determine eligibility for pensionary benefits.

Whether approved for reporting?¹Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? ____________________________________________________ _

Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral)

By way of this petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed foCr the following reliefs:-

“I. That the respondents may kindly be directed to grant hpension and pensionary benefits to the petitioner by giving the benefit of Rule 49 (3) of CCS Pension Rules by considering 9 years 9 months and 24 days regular i service of the petitioner to be qualifying service for purpose of pension an pensionary benefit in the interest of justice.

II. That the respondents may be directed to decide the representation dated 30.11.2024 file by the petitioner.”

The notices were issued in the matter by this Court on 23.04.2025 and four weeks time was granted to the State to file reply. Thereafter, the matter was listed on 31.03.2026 and on the said date, the Court passed following order:-

“Reply not filed. Learned Additional Advocate General prays for and is granted two weeks more time to. do the needful. List on 17.04.2026. It is clarified that, in case, the reply is not filed by the said date, then, thHe case will be decided on the basis of the pleadings on record.”

However, no reply to the petition has been filed by the State. Accordingly, right to file reply is hereby closed.

Learned Additional Advocate General submits that though due intimation wars given to the Department to file response, to the petition, but the same has not been filed.

Be that as it may, the issue involved in this case is in a very narCrow compass. The petitioner was initially engaged as a Part Time Water Carrier w.e.f. 26.08.1997, and posted as such at GPS Ban (Nurpur), District Kangra, H.P. His services were converted to gcontingent basis on 08.06.2011. Thereafter, he was promoted as a iClass-IV employee w.e.f. 15.06.2012, and he retired as such on 31.03.2021. As from the date of promotion/regularisation of the petitioner as a Class-IV employee, he has completed 9 years 9 months and 24 days service and since he has not completed 10 years of service as from the date of his promotion/ regularisation, therefore, he has been denied the pension and feeling aggrieved, he approached this Court.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the issue is no more res integra that the Whole Time Contingent Service has to be taken into consideration towards the qualifying service for rendering such like incumbents eligible for receipt of pension. She has referred to the judgment dated 27.06.2025, passed by the Hon’ble Coordinate Bench of this Court in CHWP No.6688 of 2021, titled Bimla Devi Versus State of H.P. & others in this regard. Learned Counsel also referred to judgment dated 10.03.2026, passed by this Court in CWP No.9484 of 2024, titled Kuldeep Singh Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others ,t in which this Court by placing reliance upon the judgment of Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in CWP No.3310 of 2011, titled Smt. Leela Devi Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others and other connected matter, decided on 12.12.2011, has held that a Part Time Water Carrier in continuous servic e of 8 years with 240 days in a calendar year as daily wager and after 10 years of regular service, shall be appointed on regular basis as a Class-IV employee.

From the facts, as stand narrated in the petition and which have not been reverted by filing any reply by the State and which facts are otherwise supplemented from the documents appended with the petition, it is apparent and evident that in the present case, upon completion of continuous service of 8 years with 240 days in a calendar year as daily wager, after 10 years of Part Time service, the petitioner was not appointed as a regular Class-IV employee, as was the dictate of Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in CWP No.3310 of 2011, titled Smt. Leela Devi Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others and other c