IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No.8938 of 2022 Decided on 28th July 2026 Shri Baldev Raj …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: Mr. Pawanish Kumar Shukla, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Rajpal Thakur, Additional Advocate General. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs:- “i) The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pass the direction to the respondents to regularize the services of petitioner on completion of 10 year service w.e.f. 01.01.2001 with all benefits incidental thereof, such as, seniority, pay fixation, payment of difference of arrears, revised gratuity and leave encashment etc. ii) The Hon’ble Court may kindly be further pass the directions to the respondent to consider the case of petitioner for pension in the light of judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court passed in Civil Appeal No.6309 of 2017, decided on 08.03.2018, titled Sunder Singh versus State of H.P. and others” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court to award dated 22.07.2015, passed by the learned Labour Court in a Reference made by the 2 appropriate Government and has submitted that the reference was answered by the learned Labour Court as under:- “As sequel to my findings on foregoing issues, it is held that the petitioners are held to be in continuous uninterrupted service with the respondents from the date of their initial engagement and that the breaks given by the respondents being fictional in nature shall have no effect on the seniority and continuity of service of the petitioners and their seniority shall be recko0ned from their initial date of engagement. Accordingly, claim of petitioners is hereby allowed in part and reference is accordingly answered i8n favour of petitioners who shall thus be deemed to be in continuous service of respondents with all consequential benefits except back wages. However, they shall be considered for regularization by respondents at the time when their juniors have been regularized as per policy governing daily wagers as framed by the State Government and operative from time to time. The parties however, shall bear their own costs.” 3. He submitted that in light of the fact that as time to time termination of services of the petitioner was held to be bad by the learned Labour Court, the petitioner has a right to be regularized upon completion of 10 years of service w.e.f. 01.01.2001 with other consequential benefits. 4. On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General has referred to Para-19 of the award passed by the learned Labour Court and submitted that in terms of the award, the petitioner was to be considered for regularization at the time 3 when his juniors were regularized as per the Policy governing regularization of daily wagers and as it is not the case of the petitioner that his services were not regularized when his juniors were regularized, he has no right to maintain the petition on this count. 5. Faced with this situation, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is an alternative prayer made by the petitioner for consideration of his case for grant of pension in terms of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sunder Singh versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others (Civil Appeal No.6309 of 2017). 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the pleadings as also the documents appended therewith, including the award passed by the learned Labour Court, which was upheld by this Court in a writ petition filed by the State. 7. This Court is of the considered view that as the learned Labour Court was pleased to observe that the petitioner and other workmen shall be considered for regularization by the Department at the time when their juniors 4 stood regularized, as per the Policy governing regularization of daily wagers and as it is not the case of the petitioner that his services were not regularized from the date when his juniors were regularized, therefore, now he cannot come up and claim regularization from an earlier date. 8. 8. If the petitioner was not satisfied with the findings returned by the learned Labour Court in the award, qua the conferment of regularization, he would have been well advised to have assailed the said findings. In the absence of any challenge thereto, the petitioner is barred from maintaining this writ petition, at least as far as relief No.1 is concerned. 9. As far as the alternative prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned, this petition is disposed of with the direction that the petitioner shall approach the Authorities with regard to the right of grant of pension in terms of the law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sunder Singh versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others (supra) and Balo Devi versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others (Civil Appeal No.4792 of 2022) within two weeks from today. An appropriate order shall be passed on the representation of 5 the petitioner by the Competent Authority within four weeks as from the date of receipt thereof. It is clarified that the rejection of the first prayer of the petitioner shall not influence the Competent Authority while deciding the representation of the petitioner for grant of pension. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge July 28, 2026 (Vinod)