IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No. 8273 of 2011 Decided on: 20th September, 2011. Surender Kumar. …Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. & others. …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. For the petitioner : Mr. Virender Bali, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. R.K. Bawa, AG with Mr. J.K. Verma, Dy. AG ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral) The petitioner is a part time employee working in the Education Department. In the Education Department Annexure P-1, R & P Rules are applicable in the matter of appointment to the post of regular Class-IV employees. Rule 10 provides that method of recruitment is by promotion only. Rule 11 shows that promotion is from amongst the part- time/whole time contingent paid employees on the basis of the seniority subject to rejection of the unfit. Therefore, the general policy of part timers, being contrary to daily wage status on completion of ten years and thereafter on completion of eight years as daily waged they would be conferred regular status, will not apply in this department. 2 An identical issue was considered in judgment dated 21.12.2010 in CWP No. 7896 of 2010 titled as Jai Singh versus State of H.P. and others. 2. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of directing the third respondent/competent authority to look into the case of the petitioner in the light of Annexure P-1, policy as applicable to the Education Department and in case vacancy is available in the post of regular Class-IV employees, subject to the seniority and eligibility in terms of Rule 11, petitioner shall be promoted as regular Class-IV employee. It is made clear that in the event of petitioner thus being given promotion with retrospective effect in the process, he shall not be entitled to any consequential monetary benefits as regular employee; however such retrospective promotion shall be counted for all other service benefits. Needful Action in this regard shall be taken within four months from the date of production of a copy of this judgment along with copy of writ petition by the petitioner before the third respondent. 3. The writ petition is disposed of, so also the pending applications, if any. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice 20th September, 2011. (Justice Sanjay Karol), (kck) Judge. 3