IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No.3110 of 2021 Decided on 28th February 2026 Sh. Kedar Singh …Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others …Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge 1Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioner: Ms. Babita Chauhan, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, with Mr. Rajat Chauhan, Assistant Advocate General. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following relief:- “That the respondents may be ordered to treat entire service of the petitioner as regular employee from the date of his initial appointment on part time basis with all consequential benefits.” 2. The case of the petitioner is that he was engaged as a Daily Wage Beldar w.e.f. 01.01.1990. Thereafter, the services of the petitioner were regularized as Beldar in the 2 month of January, 2000. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has a right to be appointed on regular basis from the date, he was appointed on daily wage basis in the light of the fact that the petitioner suffers from visual disability. Accordingly, she prayed that the entire services of the petitioner may be treated on regular basis as from the date of his initial appointment on daily wage basis with all consequential benefits. 5. On the other hand, learned Advocate General has drawn the attention of the Court to the reply filed by the respondents and submitted that in the present case the petitioner was initially engaged as a Belar on daily wage basis and thereafter he continued as such. Learned Advocate General submitted that herein, it is not a case that the petitioner was appointed against a post reserved for physically disabled on contract basis and, therefore, the act of the respondents of not regularizing the petitioner from the initial date of his joining cannot be faulted with for the reason that the judgment being relied upon by the petitioner was totally on different factual 3 matrix. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as also learned Advocate General and have also carefully gone through the pleadings as well as the documents appended therewith. 7. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was initially appointed as a Beldar on daily wage basis. 8. Therefore, herein, it is not a case that the petitioner was engaged may be on daily wage basis, but, against a post exclusively reserved for a physically disabled person. The petitioner has also not appended any documents from which it can be inferred that the process was initiated by the respondent-Department to fill up the posts of Beldar exclusively from the physically disabled person’s category and the petitioner participated in the said process and was selected on the basis of said process, though on part time basis. 9. In this backdrop, if one peruses the subsequent events, they demonstrate that the services of the petitioner were brought on regular basis in the month January, 2000. 10. Unlike the parties in the case being relied upon by 4 the petitioner, who were appointed against the posts meant for disabled persons on contract basis, herein, the petitioner was simply engaged as a daily wage Beldar in routine. In this backdrop, he cannot be given the benefit of the judgments relied upon by the petitioner. There is no similarity either in the factual matrix or legal matrix in the case being relied upon vis- à-vis the case of the petitioner. Accordingly, the petitioner has been rightly denied the benefit of regularization from the initial date of joining. 11. Thus, as this Court does not find any merit in the present petition, the same is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge February 28, 2026 (Vinod)