CWPOA/7956/2019 on 9 October 2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWPOA No.7956 of 2019 Decided on: 09.10.2026 Netar Singh Chauhan

...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and another ...Respondents

Coram

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the petitioner: Mr. Vinod Chauhan, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Amandeep Sharma, Additional Advocate General. Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge

(Oral)

The petitioner by way of present petition has prayed for the following substantive reliefs:- “(i). That the impugned rejection order contained in Annexure A-5 dated 1.6.2016 may kindly be quashed and set-aside.

(ii) . That the respondents may further be directed to count the contractual service of the applicant as qualifying service for the purpose of pension, increments, seniority etc. with all consequential benefits.”

(iii) That respondent may kindly be directed to allot the GPF no. to the present appellant.”

Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the key facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as Lecturer, English (School Cadre) on contract basis on 25.09.1998 and his services came to be regularized on 31.12.2008 (Annexure A-1). It has been averred that the petitioner was recruited as Lecturer on contract basis prior to 2003 and thus, he is entitled for the grant of pension, since the pension has been stopped in case of those employees who are recruited after 2003. It has further been averred that the services of the petitioner were not regularized in terms of the policy dated 07.05.2010, vide which, his services were to be regularized after completion of 8 years’ service. It has also been averred that the period of service rendered by the petitioner on contract basis has to be counted for the purpose of qualifying service for grant of pension, increments and other service benefits. The petitioner had earlier approached this Court by way of writ petition claiming therein that his services ought to have been regularized after completion of 8 years’ service and further the contract service is to be counted for the purpose of increments, seniority and pension.

3. The writ petition was transferred to the erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal (in short ‘the

Tribunal’) and came to be disposed of on 21.12.2015 with a direction to respondent No.2 to decide the representation, if any, made by the petitioner. The petitioner made a representation to respondent No.2, which came to be rejected, vide order dated 01.06.2016 (Annexure A-5) on the ground that the service rendered by the petitioner on contract basis with break-ups in each year cannot be terms as continuous service and the benefit, if any, as provided under Rule 17 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 [in short CCS(Pension) Rules, 1972] is not admissible to the contract employees in Himachal Pradesh. Since the petitioner has been regularized after 15.05.2003, he cannot be covered under the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, because these rules have been made inapplicable w.e.f. 15.05.2003. All Government employees appointed on or after 15.05.2003 in the service of the State Government on regular basis are covered under the Contributory Pension Scheme called as New Pension System and as such, the plea of the petitioner to count his past contract service rendered by him is not tenable. Further, so far as the case of Smt. Veena Devi is concerned, it was held that the case of the petitioner is not similar to her case, as she was engaged with typing work on ‘work order contract’ basis in the

HPSEB not on monthly wages/remuneration like the petitioner in the present case, which was never similar to the terms and conditions of the contract appointee under the contract policy of the State Government.

4. The petitioner feeling aggrieved by the rejection of his claim as per order dated 01.06.2016 (Annexure A-5) has approached this Court inter alia on the grounds that the impugned order is illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory as well as against the policy decision of the State Government. It has further been averred that while rejecting the claim of the petitioner, an important factor has been ignored that the contractual appointment of the petitioner was followed by regular appointment, without any break and gap and hence, the period of contract service continuously rendered by the petitioner should be counted for the purpose of increments and pension. Further, the petitioner was to be regularized after completion of 8 years continuous service and not regularizing his services and rejecting his claim is illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory. Further the same is also violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, on the above pleas, a prayer has been made by the petitioner to quash the order dated 01.06.2016 passed by respondent No.2 and further directions be issued to the respondents to count the period of contract service rendered by him for the purpose of pension, increments, seniority etc., with all consequential benefits.

5. The respondents filed reply to the petition and in preliminary submissions averred that the original application is not maintainable, since it was initially instituted before the Tribunal and after abolition of the same was transferred to this Court and registered as present petition. The service conditions of the contract employees are regulated in accordance with contract policy. As per Government policy and the Recruitment and Promotion Rules (in short ‘R&P Rules’) framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India provide for appointment of persons on contract basis with specific conditions governing persons appointed under the provisions of Rules. The contract employees in Government Departments normally work on contract for one year. The contract service is extendable on year-to-year basis by way of renewal of contract. The employees, who have been appointed on contract basis prior to 14.05.2003, but if regularized on or after 15.05.2003 are not covered under the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, because these Rules have been made inapplicable w.e.f.

15.05.2003. It has also been averred that the terms and conditions in the case of Smt. Veena Devi are entirely different than the terms and conditions of contract employees in the State Government and as such the said judgment is not applicable in the case at hand. On merits, it has been averred that the claim of the petitioner has rightly been rejected vide order dated 01.06.2016. The representation made by the petitioner has rightly been rejected on the ground that there was no contract condition that service rendered during contract will be counted for increment purpose. Further, the contract appointees regularized after May, 2003 are not entitled to be governed under the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 and as such prayed for dismissal of the petition.

6. The petitioner filed rejoinder to the reply and controverted the averments made therein.

7. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was appointed as lecturer, English(School Cadre) on contract basis on 25.09.1998 and thereafter his services were regularized as per office order dated 31.12.2008, which was by considering the service rendered by the petitioner on contract basis. The issue with respect to counting of the period of contract service for the purpose of increments and pension is no more res integra in view of the authoritative decision of this Court in CWP No 2411 of 2019, titled, Jagdish Chand vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & others. The respondents had filed SLP against the decision passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the aforementioned case, however, the respondents-State remained unsuccessful and the SLP preferred by them was dismissed on 31.08.2023.

8. Once the issue is squarely covered by the decision rendered in Jagdish Chand’s case (supra), the petitioner, whose services have been regularized after taking into account the contract service rendered by him, is entitled to have his entire service considered for the purpose of pension and increments.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the services of the petitioner be regularized after completion of eight years services. However, the said submission cannot be accepted at this belated stage in view of the fact that the petitioner was regularized in the year 2008 and he filed the writ petition before this Court in the year 2014. Once the petitioner was not vigilant of his rights, he is not entitled for regularization of his services after completion of eight years service and also to count the period of services rendered on contract basis for the purpose of seniority and thus, both the relief of regularization and counting the period of contract service for seniority are declined.

10. Learned Additional Advocate General has vehemently argued that the petitioner is not entitled to count the service rendered by him on contract basis neither for the purpose of pension nor increments. He further submitted that the dispute with respect to the grant of increment is now sub judice before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of increments. Keeping in view the fact that the issue with respect to the increment is now pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the petitioner though is held entitled to count the period of contract service for the purpose of pension and increment, but so far as the increment part is concerned, it will be paid to him only after the decision by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 9851/2025, titled, State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. v. Ram Chand & Ors. It is made clear that in case, the State Government succeeds in the matter before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and it is held that the contract employee is not entitled to the benefit of increments during the contract period, the petitioner shall be denied the benefit of increments only.

11. Consequently, the present petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 01.06.2016 (Annexure A-5), passed by respondent No.2 is quashed and set aside and the respondents are directed to count the entire contract service rendered by the petitioner for the purpose of increments and pensionary benefits only. The period of contract service shall not be counted for the purpose of seniority and promotion. However, it is made clear that the benefit of the increments will be granted to the petitioner, if any, after the final outcome of the decision in Ram Chand’s case (supra).

12. The petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.

th October,

(Jiya Lal Bhardwaj) (Anurag) Judge