[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Himachal Pradesh High Court
Ravinder Singh Rana vs State Of H.P. And Ors on 18 December, 2025
Author: Jyotsna Rewal Dua
Bench: Jyotsna Rewal Dua
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
CWP No.9084 of 2023
and connected matters.
Decided on: 18.12.2025
.
_________________________________________________________________
1. CWP No.9084 of 2023
Ravinder Singh Rana ....Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. and Ors ...Respondents
_________________________________________________________________
of
2. CWP No.3944 of 2024
Naresh Kumari ....Petitioner
rt Versus
State of H.P. and Anr ...Respondents
_________________________________________________________________
3. CWP No.8916 of 2025
Pyare Lal ....Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. and Ors ...Respondents
_________________________________________________________________
4. CWP No.11002 of 2025
Kamla Devi ....Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. and Ors ...Respondents
_________________________________________________________________
5. CWP No.11003 of 2025
Neelam Kumari ....Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. and Ors ...Respondents
_________________________________________________________________
::: Downloaded on - 22/12/2025 20:32:40 :::CIS
-2-
6. CWP No.11006 of 2025
Bala Ram ....Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. and Ors ...Respondents
.
_________________________________________________________________
7. CWP No.11090 of 2025
Nishi Walia ....Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. and Ors ...Respondents
of
_________________________________________________________________
8. CWP No.12628 of 2025
Rajinder Singh ....Petitioner
rt
HRTC & Anr
Versus
...Respondents
_________________________________________________________________
9. CWP No.16262 of 2025
Puran Chand ....Petitioner
Versus
HRTC & Anr ...Respondents
_________________________________________________________________
10. CWP No.12868 of 2025
Piar Chand Sharma ....Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. and Ors ...Respondents
_________________________________________________________________
11. CWP No.14612 of 2025
Surindera Kumari ....Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. and Ors ...Respondents
_________________________________________________________________
::: Downloaded on - 22/12/2025 20:32:40 :::CIS
-3-
12. CWP No.19822 of 2025
Sirmour Singh ....Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. and Ors ...Respondents
.
_________________________________________________________________
13. Ex. Pet No.216 of 2025
Kishore Chand ....Petitioner
Versus
HRTC and Ors ...Respondents
of
_________________________________________________________________
Coram
Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua
rt
1 Whether approved for reporting?
_________________________________________________________________
For the petitioners: Mr. Onkar Jairath, Mr. A.K.Gupta,
Mr.H. S. Rangra, Mr. Surinder
Prakash Sharma, Mr. Mukul Sood,
Mr. Abhinav Purohit, Mr. Riditya
Katoch, Mr. R.L.Verma, Advocate
and Mr. Shagun Sharma, Advocates
for the petitioner(s), in the
respective petitions.
For the respondents: Mr.Anup Rattan, Advocate General
with Mr. L.N.Sharma, and Additional
Advocate General for the
respondents-State.
Mr. Raman Jamalta and Mr. Dheeraj
K Vashishat, Advocates for the
respondents-HRTC, in the respective
petitions.
1
Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes
::: Downloaded on - 22/12/2025 20:32:40 :::CIS
-4-
Mr. Tek Ram Sharma, Mr. Rangil
Singh and Mr. Rajesh Kosh,
Advocates for the respondent-
Accountant General, in the respective
petitions.
.
Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge
The only grievance of the petitioners that has
been highlighted at this stage is centered towards counting
of
the contractual service rendered by them, followed by
regularization as qualifying service for the purpose of
'pension'.
rt
This relief has been claimed in light of law laid
down in State of H.P. & Anr. Vs. Sheela Devi 2.
The aforesaid decision was followed in S.D.
Jayaprakash & Ors. etc. Vs. The Union of India & Ors. 3.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners have also
invited attention to a decision rendered in Ram Chand &
Ors. Vs. State of H.P. & Ors.4, whereby, the petitioners/
appellants (therein) were held entitled to count their
contractual service for purpose of pensionary benefits as well
as annual increments for the said period with consequential
benefits, but restricting the actual consequential benefits for
SLP(C) No. 10399/2020 decided on 07.08.2023
Civil Appeal No(s). 5671-5672 of 2025, decided on 29.04.2025
LPA No.232 of 2024, decided on 02.09.2024
three years prior to the filing of the writ petitions. The
operative part of the judgment reads as under:-
"39. Accordingly, judgment passed by learned Single Judge
.
is modified with observation that reasoning assigned
for deciding CWPOA No.5187 of 2020, shall be Mutatis
mutandi applicable to the present matter also and
appellants shall be entitled for counting their contract
service for the purpose of pensionary benefits as well
as annual increments for the said period with all
of
consequential benefits, but restricting actual
consequential financial/benefits to three years prior to
filing of the writ petition.
40.
rt
Due and admissible benefits shall be released to the
appellants within a period of four months from today.
Needless (to say that benefits given beyond three
years prior to filing of writ petitions shall be extended
to them on notional basis."
The aforesaid decision was assailed by the State
of Himachal Pradesh in State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors.
Vs. Ram Chand and Ors.5, wherein, the Hon'ble Apex Court
vide order dated 04.04.2025 stayed the impugned directions
insofar as they related for counting the contractual service
for grant of annual increments. Impugned directions for
counting contractual service for the purpose pension,
however, were not stayed. The order passed by Hon'ble Apex
Court reads as under:-
SLP (C) Diary No(s). 8008 of 2025
"Delay Condoned.
Issue notice, returnable in four weeks.
In the meanwhile, the direction passed by the
High Court in the impugned order to count increments
.
shall remain stayed."
Similar interim orders have been passed by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in large number of Special Leave Petitions
(Civil) preferred by the State of Himachal Pradesh in such like
of
matters.
3. In view of above, at this stage, learned Advocate
rt
General submits that the respondents-State shall proceed for
considering the cases of the petitioners for grant of pension
by computing the contractual service rendered by them as
qualifying service for the purpose of pension in light of
Sheela Devi2 subject to petitioners' furnishing fresh options
in accordance with law, within a period of two months from
today, whereafter all consequential action based upon law
laid down in Sheela Devi2 shall follow.
4. In view of above submission made by learned
Advocate General, the impugned orders passed in the
individual cases contrary to above submissions and position
of law, are set-aside. Contractual service rendered by the
petitioners followed by regularization be computed as
qualifying service for purpose of pension in accordance with
Sheela Devi2 & Ram Chand5. This exercise be completed
within three months from today. Petitioners shall be at liberty
.
to seek appropriate remedy, at an appropriate stage for the
redressal of their surviving grievances, if any, in accordance
with law, in case necessity so arises in future.
The petitions are disposed of in the above terms,
of
so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.
rt Jyotsna Rewal Dua
Judge
December 18, 2025
R.Atal
