( 2025:HHC:23653 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 2602/2023 Decided on: 22.07.2025 Sapna Kumari & Ors. …Petitioners Versus State of H.P. & Anr. .…Respondents. ………………………………………………………………………………. Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes. For the petitioner: Mr. A.K. Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Rajat Choudhary, Assistant Advocate General Jyotsna Rewal Dua , J Petitioners joined the posts offered to them on contract basis within the given joining time. Some of petitioners’ juniors and counter parts selected in the same recruitment process joined prior to petitioners’ joining. As a matter of practice, the respondents regularize the contractual services on completion of three years in two slabs i.e. by 31st March and by 30th September every year. Contractual services of petitioners’ juniors & counterparts, who had joined earlier were regularized in the first slab, whereas petitioners’ contractual services were regularized in the second slab i.e. after six 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 ( 2025:HHC:23653 ) months. Resultantly, petitioners have now become juniors to their counter parts/juniors, hence, the grievance. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the case file. 3. The case 3(i) An advertisement was issued on 13.02.2015 by the Himachal Pradesh Subordinate Services Selection Board Hamirpur, District Hamirpur, inter-alia inviting applications for 69 posts of Supervisors to be filled up on contract basis in Women and Child Development Department. 3(ii) Petitioners along with others applied for the aforesaid posts. Result of the selection process for the 69 posts of Supervisors was declared on 04.12.2015. Petitioners emerged successful. Many others were also selected. 3(iii) The respondents offered appointments to the petitioners and other selected candidates on 30.03.2016 against the posts of Supervisor Class-III (Non-gazetted) on contract basis (Annexure P-3 colly). The offer letters directed the petitioners and other successful candidates to report for duty by 16.04.2016, failing which, the offer was to stand cancelled. The appointment offer letters were sent to the petitioners through post. The postal receipts have been placed on record (Annexure P-2 colly), most of which, show dates of dispatch of appointment letter as 04th & 05th April, 2016. 3 ( 2025:HHC:23653 ) 3(iv) All the petitioners joined within the joining time given to them in the offer of appointments i.e. by 16.04.2016. Some of the other selected candidates, pursuant to the offer of appointments given to them on 30.03.2016, had joined on 31.03.2016 or 01.04.2016. Contractual services of such other candidates were regularized on 02.05.2019 (Annexure P-5), whereas, Petitioners’ contractual services were regularized on 11.10.2019 (Annexure P-6) by taking into consideration their dates of joining, which were beyond 01.04.2016 and up-to 16.04.2016. Petitioners’ case is that their contractual services are also required to be regularized with effect from 02.05.2019 i.e. the date when contractual service of other candidates selected in the same recruitment process, were regularized. 4. In the given facts and circumstances, petitioners’ grievance is justified. Petitioners and other incumbents had participated for appointment to the posts of Supervisors to be filled up on contract basis under the advertisement dated 13.02.2015. Petitioners and other incumbents were declared successful in the selection process by the respondents on 04.12.2015. Similar letters of offer of appointments were issued by the respondents to the petitioners and other successful incumbents on 30.03.2016. All the successful candidates including the petitioners were directed to join their duties by 16.04.2016. It appears that some of the successful 4 ( 2025:HHC:23653 ) candidates, who because of fortuous circumstances viz. proximity to the headquarters; timely & quickly becoming aware of the offer of appointments issued to them; proximate place of assigned posting etc., were able to join on 31.03.2016/01.04.2016. Whereas the petitioners who got the details of their having been offered appointment to the posts of Supervisors through post dispatched on 04th & 05th April, 2016 and some of them having been assigned places of duties in tribal/hard/difficult areas could join such places after completing the codal formalities including undergoing medical fitness process later than the other successful candidates but within the joining time given under the offers of appointment. This being the admitted position, those who were able to join their contractual duties earlier pursuant to the similar offers of appointment cannot be permitted to steal march over the others (petitioners) only on the basis of their such dates of joining by regularizing their services prior in time. The petitioners cannot be put to disadvantage by segregating them from other candidates selected in the same recruitment process in matter of regularization of their contractual services merely on the basis of petitioners’ later dates of joining. Petitioners and other successful candidates comprise one unit as all of them had joined within the joining time given to them in the offer of appointments. Regularizing contractual services of such equally placed candidates by taking their dates of joining as the foundation, 5 ( 2025:HHC:23653 ) would amount to creating class within class. This would be an artificial distinction, discriminatory and in violation of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India. It is the date of offering the appointment and the fact that the selected candidates had joined within the given joining time, which would be relevant factor for purpose of regularizing contractual services. Once the contractual services of other successful candidates have been regularized on 02.05.2019, there is no reason as to why the contractual services of the petitioners cannot be regularized from the said date. There is no reason for delaying regularization of petitioners’ contractual services by six months merely on the ground that they joined their duties little later than the other successful candidates, though their joining was within the given joining time. Respondents’ reliance upon office letter dated 06.04.2022 for defending delaying regularization of petitioners’ contractual services by six months, is misconceived. Relevant portion of the office letter, reads as under: - “3. After careful consideration of the matter and also in order to remove the hardships being faced by the individuals due to maximal restriction, which deprives to give joining due to holidays immediately after issuance of appointment order, it has been decided by the Government to condone the period of holidays only in such cases where the offer/order of appointment is made/issued on the last working day of the month of March or September, as the case may be, and holiday(s) fall(s) immediately thereafter restricting the incumbent to give joining in that particular month of 6 ( 2025:HHC:23653 ) appointment. The date of issuance of offer/order of appointment will be reckoned as cutoff date for their regularisation and such period and joining time shall be considered as condoned inter-se.” The aforesaid office letter caters to an entirely different fact situation, where the given last day for joining happens to be a holiday and the incumbent gives his joining the following day. The present case does not involve the said fact situation, where the selected candidates did not join within the given joining time. The present case does not deal with the position, where the last date of joining was a holiday. In the instant case, all the successful candidates including the petitioners had joined within the given joining time. Petitioners and other selected candidates constitute one composite block. They cannot be differentiated in the matter of regularization of their contractual services on the basis of their different dates of joining when admittedly all had joined withing the allotted joining time. The action of the respondents in regularizing the contractual services of the petitioners six months after regularizing the contractual services of other successful candidates cannot be countenanced and is held bad in law. 5. In view of above, the writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to regularize the contractual services of the petitioners at par with their counterparts and with effect from the same date i.e. 02.05.2019 with all consequential benefits. The 7 ( 2025:HHC:23653 ) exercise be carried out within six weeks. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge 22nd July, 2025(rohit)