IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 5444 of 2010 Decided on: 28.09.2011 Jeet Ram …Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. & others …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner: Mr. P.D. Nanda and Mr. J.R. Gazta, Advocates. For the respondents: Mr. Rajesh Mandhotra, Learned Deputy Advocate General. Deepak Gupta, J.(Oral) 1. By means of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for his regularization in service on the ground that he has served the Department on part-time basis since the year 1990. 2. The undisputed facts are that on 1.10.1990, the petitioner was appointed as part time helper in the Painting/Sculpture Department of the Government College, Chaura Maidan at fixed emoluments of Rs.500/- per month. It is not disputed that this appointment was made after his name was duly sponsored by the Employment Exchange and in fact his 1 Whether the reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes. -2- selection was made out of 7 candidates interviewed by a Selection Committee. 3. Thereafter, in the year 1992, it appears that the designation of the petitioner was changed to part-time Sewadar- cum-Carpenter. Finally, the petitioner again was appointed as part-time Water Carrier on 1.10.1997. Whereas the prayer of the petitioner is that his entire service on part-time basis should be counted as per the policy of the Government for making him a whole time employee on contingent basis and thereafter for regularization. 4. The stand of the Government is that the petitioner was appointed as part-time Water Carrier on 1.10.1997 and only thereafter his service as part-time Water Carrier is to be taken into consideration. The stand of the respondent is that earlier, the petitioner was being paid out of the amalgamated funds, which was a local fund of the College and, therefore, can not be treated as a part-time employee of the College. In my view, there is no merit in the contention of the State. It is not disputed that the name of the petitioner was sponsored by the Employment Exchange and out of 7 persons so proposed, he was selected and appointed as part-time Helper. How can a Class-IV employee know whether his salary is paid from amalgamated funds or other funds? He has no concern with the same. He only knows that he is a part-time employee. Almost, after 7 years, he was again appointed as Water Carrier, but again on -3- part time basis. Why should he loose the benefits of the earlier part-time service rendered by him? In my view, there is no rationale in denying the benefit of the earlier part-time service rendered by the petitioner. 5. In view of the above discussion, the petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to consider the entire service rendered by the petitioner w.e.f. 1.9.1990 on part-time basis for all intents and purposes for first making him a whole time contingent paid employee and thereafter a regular employee. 6. The respondents are directed to ensure that the needful is done latest by 31st March, 2012. The seniority of the petitioner in the part-time list shall be reckoned w.e.f. 1.10.1990 and not from 1997. The petitioner shall be given all monetary benefits which may be due and payable to him latest by 31st March, 2012, failing which the respondents shall be liable to pay interest on the monetary benefits @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition. The petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. (Deepak Gupta), Judge. 28th September, 2011 k.sharma