IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 3916 of 2022 a/w CWP Nos.3874, 3882, 3883, 3902, 3903, 3914, 3915, 3917, 3918, 4054, 4055, 4056, 4057, 4058, 4059, 4060, 4061, 4062, 4063, 4064, 4065, 4066, 4067, 4068, 4069, 4070, 5096, 5097, 5113, 5114, 5115, 5116 and 5117 of 2022 Date of Decision: 25.06.2025 _______________________________________________________ 1. CWP No. 3916 of 2022 Ms. Reetu Kumari …….Petitioner Versus The H.P. State Co-operative Agriculture & Rural Development Bank Limited and others … Respondents 2. CWP No. 3874 of 2022 Kamal Kumar …….Petitioner Versus The H.P. State Co-operative Agriculture & Rural Development Bank Limited and others … Respondents 3. CWP No. 3882 of 2022 Naveen Kumar …….Petitioner Versus The H.P. State Co-operative Agriculture & Rural Development Bank Limited and others … Respondents 4. CWP No. 3883 of 2022 Davinder Kumar …….Petitioner Versus The H.P. State Co-operative Agriculture & Rural Development Bank Limited and others … Respondents 2 5. CWP No. 3902 of 2022 Gurudayal Thakur …….Petitioner Versus The H.P. State Co-operative Agriculture & Rural Development Bank Limited and others … Respondents 6. CWP No. 3903 of 2022 Ishant Kumar …….Petitioner Versus The H.P. State Co-operative Agriculture & Rural Development Bank Limited and others … Respondents 7. CWP No. 3914 of 2022 Pushap Lata …….Petitioner Versus The H.P. State Co-operative Agriculture & Rural Development Bank Limited and others … Respondents 8. CWP No. 3915 of 2022 Vinay Kumar …….Petitioner Versus The H.P. State Co-operative Agriculture & Rural Development Bank Limited and others … Respondents 9. CWP No. 3917 of 2022 Lalita Devi …….Petitioner Versus The H.P. State Co-operative Agriculture & Rural Development Bank Limited and others … Respondents 10. CWP No. 3918 of 2022 Prakash Tomar …….Petitioner Versus 3 The H.P. State Co-operative Agriculture & Rural Development Bank Limited and others … Respondents 11. CWP No. 4054 of 2022 Anita Devi …….Petitioner Versus The H.P. State Co-operative Agriculture & Rural Development Bank Limited and others … Respondents 12. CWP No. 4055 of 2022 Laxmi Singh …….Petitioner Versus The H.P. State Co-operative Agriculture & Rural Development Bank Limited and others … Respondents 13. CWP No. 4056 of 2022 Radha Devi …….Petitioner Versus The H.P. State Co-operative Agriculture & Rural Development Bank Limited and others … Respondents 14. CWP No. 4057 of 2022 Ritesh …….Petitioner Versus The H.P. State Co-operative Agriculture & Rural Development Bank Limited and others … Respondents 15. CWP No. 4058 of 2022 Monika Verma …….Petitioner Versus The H.P. State Co-operative Agriculture & Rural Development Bank Limited and others 4 … Respondents 16. CWP No. 4059 of 2022 Titu Mehta …….Petitioner Versus The H.P. State Co-operative Agriculture & Rural Development Bank Limited and others … Respondents 17. CWP No. 4060 of 2022 Preeti …….Petitioner Versus The H.P. State Co-operative Agriculture & Rural Development Bank Limited and others … Respondents 18. CWP No. 4061 of 2022 Anish Kumar …….Petitioner Versus The H.P. State Co-operative Agriculture & Rural Development Bank Limited and others … Respondents 19. CWP No. 4062 of 2022 Prem Lata …….Petitioner Versus The H.P. State Co-operative Agriculture & Rural Development Bank Limited and others … Respondents 20. CWP No. 4063 of 2022 Lakhwinder Kaur …….Petitioner Versus The H.P. State Co-operative Agriculture & Rural Development Bank Limited and others … Respondents 5 21. CWP No. 4064 of 2022 Anu Kumari …….Petitioner Versus The H.P. State Co-operative Agriculture & Rural Development Bank Limited and others … Respondents 22. CWP No. 4065 of 2022 Kuldeep Kumar …….Petitioner Versus The H.P. State Co-operative Agriculture & Rural Development Bank Limited and others … Respondents 23. CWP No. 4066 of 2022 Ankush Chauhan …….Petitioner Versus The H.P. State Co-operative Agriculture & Rural Development Bank Limited and others … Respondents 24. CWP No. 4067 of 2022 Bhanu Uday …….Petitioner Versus The H.P. State Co-operative Agriculture & Rural Development Bank Limited and others … Respondents 25. CWP No. 4068 of 2022 Sapna …….Petitioner Versus The H.P. State Co-operative Agriculture & Rural Development Bank Limited and others … Respondents 26. CWP No. 4069 of 2022 Vidya Devi …….Petitioner Versus 6 The H.P. State Co-operative Agriculture & Rural Development Bank Limited and others … Respondents 27. CWP No. 4070 of 2022 Priyanka …….Petitioner Versus The H.P. State Co-operative Agriculture & Rural Development Bank Limited and others … Respondents 28. CWP No. 5096 of 2022 Chhering Butith …….Petitioner Versus The H.P. State Co-operative Agriculture & Rural Development Bank Limited and others … Respondents 29. CWP No. 5097 of 2022 Vikas Thakur …….Petitioner Versus The H.P. State Co-operative Agriculture & Rural Development Bank Limited and others … Respondents 30. CWP No. 5113 of 2022 Ishwar Verma …….Petitioner Versus The H.P. State Co-operative Agriculture & Rural Development Bank Limited and others … Respondents 31. CWP No. 5114 of 2022 Luder Mani …….Petitioner Versus The H.P. State Co-operative Agriculture & Rural Development Bank Limited and others 7 … Respondents 32. CWP No. 5115 of 2022 Ankit Bhardwaj …….Petitioner Versus The H.P. State Co-operative Agriculture & Rural Development Bank Limited and others … Respondents 33. CWP No. 5116 of 2022 Kamaljeet …….Petitioner Versus The H.P. State Co-operative Agriculture & Rural Development Bank Limited and others … Respondents 34. CWP No. 5117 of 2022 Sunadha Sharma …….Petitioner Versus The H.P. State Co-operative Agriculture & Rural Development Bank Limited and others … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Rajesh Kumar Parmar and Mr. Nitin Thakur, Advocates. For the Respondents: Mr. Narender Singh Thakur, Advocate, for the respondent-Bank. Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol and Mr. B.C.Verma, Additional Advocate Generals and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent/State. _______________________________________________________ 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 8 Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): Since common question of law and facts are involved in the above captioned cases and similar relief has been prayed for, this Court, after clubbing all the cases together, heard them jointly and are being disposed of vide the common judgment. 2. Though, precisely the claim of the petitioners, who were engaged as daily deposit collectors in the respondent-Bank, in terms of the policy/scheme for engaging daily deposit Collectors, as approved by the Board of Directors of the bank in its meeting held on 31.08.2016, is that their services are required to be regularized and Rule-9 of policy, which provides that person appointed as Daily Deposit Collector shall not claim regularization, be declared ultra vires the Constitution of India. 3. Learned counsel for the parties are ad-idem that issue, sought to be decided in the instant proceedings, stands already adjudicated by Division Bench of this Court in bunch of petitions, lead case of which is CWP No. 6628 of 2025, titled Abhishek Chaudhary and another vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others alongwith connected matters, wherein similar prayer, as has been made in the above captioned cases, for regularization by Daily Deposit Collectors in the respondent-Bank, has been rejected. 9 4. Though, Mr. Nitin Thakur and Mr. Rajesh Kumar Parmar, learned counsel representing the petitioners attempted to argue that petitioners herein are required to be treated at par with daily wage employees working in the respondent-Bank, whose services are being regularized in terms of the policy of regularization framed by Government of Himachal Pradesh, further adopted by the respondent-Bank, but having taken note of the averments contained in the petitions, especially relief clause vis-à-vis judgment passed by Division Bench of this Court in Abhishek Chaudhary case(supra), this Court is not persuaded to agree with learned counsel for the petitioners, rather this Court having perused the judgment passed by Division Bench of this Court, as detailed hereinabove, is fully convinced and satisfied that issue sought to be decided in the instant proceedings is no more res-integra, rather stands duly adjudicated. 5. Division Bench of this Court, while taking note of policy as well as law on the point, has categorically held that Court cannot have any misplaced sympathy for the petitioners only because they have approached the Court ignoring the rights of the other candidates, who may have been better qualified, better suited, but were ineligible as they were not residing within the radius of 8 Kilometers. Aforesaid finding given by Division Bench of this Court is relevant for the reason that in terms of policy, if person residing 10 within the radius of 8 kilometers of the branch concerned of the respondent-Bank, could only have applied for the post of Daily Deposit Collectors. 6. Consequently, In view of the above, the directions contained in Abhishek Chaudhary case (supra) are ordered to be made mutatis mutandis applicable in the present cases for all intents and purposes. Needless to say, petitioners herein shall be entitled to the benefit of policy, if any, formulated by the respondent-Bank in times to come for regularization of such workers, especially when it is not in dispute that policy of 2016 for appointing Daily deposit Collectors was initially made for five years, but thereafter, its time was extended from time to time. 7. In the aforesaid terms, present petitions are disposed of alongwith pending application(s), if any. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge June 25, 2025 (shankar)