IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 4857 of 2011 along with CWP Nos. 4858 to 4864 of 2011. Date of Decision : June 27, 2011 1. CWP No. 4857 of 2011 Smt. Khimi Devi versus State of H.P. and others. 2. CWP No. 4858 of 2011 Sh. Kishan Chand versus State of H.P. and others. 3. CWP No. 4859 of 2011 Smt. Dropti versus State of H.P. and others. 4. CWP No. 4860 of 2011 Sh. Megh Ram versus State of H.P. and others. 5. CWP No. 4861 of 2011 Sh. Sawaran Singh versus State of H.P. and others. 6. CWP No. 4862 of 2011 Sh. Sahi Ram versus State of H.P. and others. 7. CWP No. 4863 of 2011 Smt. Dipu Devi versus State of H.P. and others. 8. CWP No. 4864 of 2011 Smt. Kanta Devi versus State of H.P. and others. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. For the petitioner: Mr. I. D. Bali, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Virender Bali, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). For the respondent: Mr. R. K. Bawa, Advocate General with Mr. Ankush Dass Sood, Addl. A.G. and Mr. J. K. Verma, Dy. A.G. for respondents-State. Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral) Petitioners in all these cases are part time employees working in the Education Department. In the Education Department Annexure P-1, R & P Rules are applicable in the matter of 2 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. 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, wherein it has been held that: “… As far as the regularization of part time employees are concerned, it is to be seen that the Ayurveda and Education Departments are to follow their own policies as available in the prescribed Rules and hence the notification pertaining to other Departments will not apply to the employees in the matter of part time becoming full time daily wager as per the Rules.” 2. Therefore, these writ petitions are disposed of directing the third respondent/competent authority to look into the case of the petitioners in the light of Annexure P-1, policy as applicable to the Education Department and in case vacancies are available in the post of regular Class-IV employees, subject to the seniority and eligibility in terms of Rule 11, petitioners shall be promoted as regular Class-IV employees. It is made clear that in the event of 3 petitioners thus being given promotion with retrospective effect in the process, they shall not be entitled to any consequential monetary benefits as regular employees; 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 concerned before the third respondent. 3. All the petitions stand disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice. (Justice Sanjay Karol), Judge. June 27, 2011 (PK/C)