IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWPOA No. 4863 of 2019 Date of Decision: 07.03.2026 Jeeta Ram ...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. P.D. Nanda, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Hemant Kumar Verma, Deputy Advocate General. Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge (oral) The petitioner by way of present petition has prayed for the following substantive relief:- “That the order dated 29th July, 2006 and dated 21.09.2010 may kindly be quashed and set aside and respondents may kindly be directed to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization from the date his juniors have been regularized as Class-IV employees with all consequential benefits.” 2. The petitioner has pleaded in the petition that he was appointed as part time worker on 14.10.1991 (Annexure P-1). 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 ( 2026:HHC:6542 ) Thereafter, one post of regular daily waged employee became available with the respondents/State and the name of the petitioner was sponsored by the concerned employment exchange. Thereafter, he was engaged as daily waged worker by the respondents/State on 05.02.1993 (Annexure P-2). 3. As per the pleadings in the writ petition, the petitioner has pleaded that respondent No.1 issued communication dated 13.09.1996 (Annexure P-3/A), whereunder it was decided to regularize the services of those part time workers/daily waged workers, who fulfilled the conditions contained in communication dated 13.09.1996. The same are reproduced hereunder :- “Himachal Pradesh Government Social and Women Welfare Department From, Commissioner-cum-Secretary (Welfare), HP Government, Shimla, 171002 To The Director Welfare, HP Shimla, 171009. Dated:- Shimla-2 13.09.1996 Subject:- Filling up of vacant post of Class-IV category under ICDS Sir, In continuation to this Department letter of even No. dated 13.09.1996, I am directed to say that vacant post of Class 3 ( 2026:HHC:6542 ) IV category in ICDS be filled up out of part time/daily waged employees as under:- i) In the first instance, the candidates who have passed 7th standard examination and their names have been sponsored by the employment exchange; ii) Candidates must fulfill the age limit on the date of the Recruitment, and iii) Candidates who have worked as part time workers/daily waged workers for at least 5 years in the department. Yours faithfully Sd/- Joint Secretary (Welfare) Himachal Pradesh Government” 4. In pursuance of the said communication, respondents/State regularized the services of 51 part time workers as Sewadars/Peons, against which, the petitioner made a representation. However, his representation was not considered in a right perspective, though, he was promoted vide office order dated 12.04.2001 (Annexure P-4). After promotion of the petitioner as Chowkidar, he made a representation to the competent authority to consider his claim for regularization in terms of the communication dated 13.09.2006. However, the claim of the petitioner was rejected vide office order dated 29.07.2006 (Annexure P-7) only on the ground that 4 ( 2026:HHC:6542 ) as per policy framed in the year 1996 for regularization against Class- IV category, he was not eligible for regularization. 5. The petitioner, feeling aggrieved by the said order filed a writ petition, bearing No. CWP No. 1884 of 2010, titled, Jeet Ram Vs. State of HP. and another. The said writ petition was disposed of on 18.05.2010 with a direction to the 2nd respondent to look into the representation already filed by the petitioner and take appropriate action in accordance with law within a period of two months from the production of copy of said judgment alongwith the copy of the writ petition. 6. In sequel to the direction given by this Court, respondent No. 2, vide Annexure P-9, dated 21.09.2010 had rejected the claim of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner’s name does not figure in the 3rd list since he was directly engaged as daily waged worker after interview on 02.01.1993, hence, he is not entitled for claiming seniority as a part time worker since 1991. It has also been recorded that even if, the service of the petitioner as a part time worker is taken into account, he could not have been regularized, as many part time workers, who were senior to the petitioner, have been left out for regularization due to lack of vacancies and the contention 5 ( 2026:HHC:6542 ) raised by the petitioner that junior person to him had been regularized earlier was also not tenable. It has further been recorded that from the record it has been confirmed that Smt. Asha Devi and Dhamender Kumar were working as part time workers since 1997, respectively, therefore, his claim seeking regularization from the back date, cannot be accepted. Being aggrieved by the order dated 21.09.2010 (Annexure P-9), the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. 7. The petitioner in the writ petition has laid challenge to the aforesaid two orders and has averred that as per the policy decision dated 13.09.1996, in the first instance, the candidates who had passed 7th standard exanimation and whose names had been sponsored by the employment exchanges, were to be considered for regularization against the existing vacancies of Class-IV workers in the respondents/State and since the petitioner was not fulfilling both the conditions, his candidature could not have been considered for regularization being a part time worker. The petitioner name was sponsored by the employment exchange as confirmed vide letter dated 01.01.2025, vide list dated 15.02.1993, when he was engaged as daily waged worker with the respondents/State. Therefore, the plea taken by the respondents that the case of the petitioner does not fall 6 ( 2026:HHC:6542 ) under the policy framed by the respondents/State in the year 1996 for regularization as part time worker/daily waged worker is wrong. The petitioner has also pleaded that the action on the part of the respondents is arbitrary and in violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India since the services of Asha Devi and Dhamender Kumar as part time workers have been counted for the purpose of regularization. 8. The respondents/State filed reply to the writ petition and averred that the writ petition is not maintainable on facts, as the petitioner is estopped from filing the same and no enforceable cause of action has arisen in his favour, as no fundamental or constitutional right whatsoever has been infringed. It has been pleaded that the petitioner was initially engaged as part time worker on 14.10.1991 and thereafter appointed as daily waged Chowkidar on whole time basis through direct recruitment and interviewed in the year 1993. He was made contingent paid worker vide office order dated 01.02.1996 and subsequently on completion of eight years of continuous service as daily waged/contingent worker and having become eligible for regularization, his services have been regularized vide order dated 12.04.2001 as per the policy/instructions issued by the Personnel Department dated 03.04.2000 for regularization of daily waged 7 ( 2026:HHC:6542 ) /contingent paid worker. So far as the plea raised by the petitioner in the writ petition that his services were to be regularized in terms of the policy decision dated 13.09.1996 is concerned, a plea has been taken that in the first instance that only those part time workers, who had completed five years and sponsored by the employment exchange, and were within the admissible age limit on the date of recruitment, were to be regularized. The Department on the basis of the criteria filled up 51 Class-IV posts by regularizing the services of the part time workers in the pay scale of Rs. 750-1350. On the basis of the above-mentioned criteria, the services of 07 part time workers, were also regularized vide office order dated 02.01.1997. 9. The petitioner filed rejoinder to the reply and controverted the facts pleaded in the writ petition. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondents/State and also perused the case file. 11. It is not in dispute that the respondents/State had issued instructions dated 13.09.1996. As per these instructions, the persons who were working as part time workers/daily waged employees were to be considered for regularization against Class-IV employees against 8 ( 2026:HHC:6542 ) available vacancies, who fulfilled the criteria stipulated in that communication. As per criteria No.1, in the first instance, the candidates who had passed 7th standard examination and whose names had been sponsored by the employment exchanges, were to be considered for regularization against the existing vacancies of Class-IV employees. In the case of the petitioner, he was initially appointed as part time worker on 14.10.1991 and thereafter, appointed as daily waged Chowkidar. As per the policy formulated by the respondents/State dated 13.09.1996, he was eligible to be regularized on the post of Class-IV Peon. Respondents in the reply had interpreted this condition construing as if in the first list, those part time workers who had completed five years, and sponsored by the employment exchange and were within the admissible age limit at the time of appointment, were to be regularized, which otherwise, is not the import of the conditions postulated in the communication dated 13.09.1996. Even while rejecting the claim of the petitioner by respondent No.2, as per Annexure P-9, he has reproduced the conditions of the communication dated 13.09.1996, wherein it has been mentioned that in the first instance, the candidates who had passed 7th standard examination and whose names had been sponsored by the employment exchange, were to be regularized. 9 ( 2026:HHC:6542 ) 12. The respondents with a view to deny the benefits to the petitioner has now taken a summersault by stating in para-5 of the preliminary submissions that as per the office record and on the basis of the criteria laid down in the policy decision dated 13.09.1996, three lists have been drawn. In the first list, those part time workers, who had completed five years, sponsored by the employment exchange and were within the admissible age limit at the time of appointment, were considered for regularization, which is not the import of the instructions contained in communication dated 13.09.1996. 13. The respondents at the time of regularizing the services as Class-IV employees had to only see, in the first instance that the part time workers/daily waged employees possessed the essential qualification of 7th pass and that their names had been recommended by the employment exchange. In the present case, the name of the petitioner was recommended by the employment exchange and further, as per the documents placed on record, the petitioner had done his matriculation in the year 1989, as is evident from Annexure P-3/P. 10 ( 2026:HHC:6542 ) 14. The rejection order dated 29.07.2006 only conveys that the petitioner was not found eligible for regularization during the year 1996, whereas, as per the observations made hereinabove, there was no requirement of any service, when the person had been in possession of 7th pass and further his name was sponsored by the employment exchange. The second order which has been passed after the direction issued by this Court on 21.09.2010 (Annexure P-9) is also not sustainable for the reason that in this order, it has been mentioned that the petitioner was directly engaged as daily waged worker after being interviewed on 02.01.1993. Hence, he is not entitled for claiming seniority as part time workers since 1991. 15. Even if the claim of the petitioner as a part time worker is taken into account, he would not have been regularized, as many part time workers senior to him had been left out for regularization, due to lack of vacancies. So far as the reasoning given, while rejecting the claim of the petitioner in the impugned order is concerned, the same is not sustainable for the reason that once the competent authority had taken into account the petitioner’s service as part time worker and further, later on, he was appointed on daily wage basis after interview on 02.01.1993, his claim cannot be rejected on the ground that his name was not sponsored by the employment exchange. The 11 ( 2026:HHC:6542 ) petitioner has placed on record Annexure P-2 which clearly suggests that his name was entered in the employment exchange. Even if his name was not sponsored, as per the dictum of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Excise Superintendent Malkapatnam, Krishna, District A.P. Vs. K.B.N. Visweshwara Rao and others, (1996) 6 SCC 216, the selection cannot be restricted to only such candidates, whose names come to be sponsored by the employment exchange. Since the petitioner was otherwise fulfilling condition No.1 having possessed the qualification of 7th class, his name ought to have been considered first and the interpretation given by the respondents that the persons who had completed five years service were to be considered first does not borne out from the perusal of said clause. 16. The respondents/State with a view to deny the benefits to the petitioner, considered the claim of those employees, who had rendered five years service, when the case for the first time for regularization against the vacant posts of Class-IV was considered, whereas the policy does not provide for the same. Hence, the impugned orders dated 29.07.2006 (Annexure P-7) and 21.09.2010 (Annexure P-9) passed by the authorities are contrary to the instructions issued by respondent No.1 and thus, the same are quashed and set aside and the respondents are directed to regularize 12 ( 2026:HHC:6542 ) the services of the petitioner w.e.f. 23.11.1996 instead of 12.04.2001, with all consequential benefits. However, it is clarified that the financial benefits shall be paid to the petitioner for a period of three years, prior to the filing of the petition, till its realization. 17. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. (Jiya Lal Bhardwaj) Judge 7th March, 2026 (sushma)