IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 5989 of 2025 Date of Decision: 12.09.2025 _______________________________________________________ Balkrishan & others …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & others … Respondents ______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Rajeev Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C.Verma, Additional Advocate Generals and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. _______________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): Petitioners herein are aggrieved of order dated 23.07.2021 (Annexure P-9) passed by Director General of Police, Himachal Pradesh, whereby the claim of the petitioners for regularization from the date of their initial appointment has been rejected. 2. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioners, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. Rajeev Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners, is that though petitioners herein had been working for more than eight hours per day from the 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 date of their initial appointments i.e. 21.07.1998, 14.12.1998 and 27.08.1996 respectively, as is evident from the certificates issued by the concerned police station (Annexure P-10 colly), but yet the services rendered by them for more than eight hours per day prior to 18.05.2010, have not been taken into consideration, while regularizing their services in terms of policy of regularization framed by the Government of Himachal Pradesh. 3. Precisely, the facts of the case as emerge from the record are that the petitioners, namely Sh. Bal Krishan, Sh. Durga Singh and Sh. Budhi Ram, were engaged as Part Time Water Carrier- cum-Cook against vacant posts on 21.07.1998, 14.12.1998 and 27.08.1996 respectively, by the Superintendent of Police, Shimla and their services were converted from part time to daily wager on 18.05.2010, in terms of Government of Himachal Pradesh Policy dated 13.10.2009 and thereafter, they were regularized on completion of 7 years of daily wage service vide office order dated 10.08.2016 and 27.08.2015, respectively (Annexure P-2 colly). 4. In nutshell, the case of the petitioners is that they ought to have been regularized from the date they had completed more than eight years of service from the date of their initial appointments made on 21.07.1998, 14.12.1998 and 27.08.1996, respectively. Mr. Rajeev Sharma, learned counsel representing the petitioners, while inviting 3 attention of this Court to the certificates issued by concerned police stations (Annexure P-10 colly), states that petitioners herein, though were given nomenclature of part time workers, but they had been rendering duty of more than eight hours per day and as such, ought to have been considered as daily wage employees. If it is so, they were required to be regularized from the date they had completed eight years of service from the date of their initial appointments, but respondents regularized their services from the date of their conversion from part time to daily wage vide order dated 18.05.2010. 5. To the contrary, Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, while referring to the reply filed by the respondents, vehemently argued that once it is not in dispute that initial appointments of the petitioners on 21.07.1998, 14.12.1998 and 27.08.1996, respectively, by Superintendent of Police were as a Part Time Water Carrier-Cum-Cook, the certificates, if any, issued by concerned police stations certifying that petitioners had been rendering services for more than eight hours per day are of no relevance so far as conversion of services of the petitioners from part time to daily wage is concerned. He further submitted that petitioners herein were initially engaged as a Part Time Water Carrier-Cum-Cook against vacant posts in terms of policy formulated by the Government of Himachal Pradesh. He submitted that after their having completed 4 more than ten years as Part Time Water Carrier-Cum-Cook, services of the petitioners were converted to daily wage basis. He further submitted that as and when petitioners herein completed more than seven years of service on daily wage basis with 240 days in each calendar year, their services were regularized in terms of policy framed by the Government of Himachal Pradesh. 6. Careful perusal of pleadings adduced on record by the respective parties clearly reveals that petitioners, named hereinabove, had filed CWP No. 1003 of 2011 before this Court, praying therein that respondents may be directed to regularize the services of the petitioners from the date, they had completed eight years of service with all benefits incidental thereof such as full back wages, seniority and pay fixation, as was done in the case of Sh. Mast Ram. Afore writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 02.12.2011 with a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners on the analogy of letter dated 25.09.2010, whereby the services of person, namely Sh. Mast Ram were regularized as Water Carrier against the regular post with effect from 01.04.2008. However, on receipt of afore judgment dated 02.12.2021 passed by this Court, cases of the petitioners were considered at Police Headquarter and they were granted the status of daily wager w.e.f. 21.07.2008, 14.12.2008 and 10.08.2006 i.e. when they completed 10 years of part time service. 5 7. Since despite there being directions issued by this Court in the writ petition, as detailed hereinabove, petitioners were not given the status of daily wagers from the date of their initial appointments, they filed T.A. No.4073 of 2015 before the erstwhile Himachal Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal (Annexure P-7), which came to be disposed of vide order dated 16.05.2016 with following observations:- “3.Learned counsel appearing for the applicants urged that this was factually incorrect as the applicants had not been performing duties of daily wagers for 8 hours. She placed reliance on certificate(s) issued by the officer In-charge, Police Post, Lakkar Bazar, regarding working of Sh. Bal Krishan for 8 hours daily as Water carrier- cum- Cook, Annexure P-15, In-charge, police post, Narkanda regarding working of Sh. Budhiram for 8 hours daily as a Cook, Annexure P- 16, and regarding working of Sh. Durga Singh for eight hours daily as a Cook, Annexure P-11.The learned counsel submitted that this was a conclusive brief that the applicants were performing duties of daily wager; 4. The State in its reply stated that the applicants were engaged as part time water carrier-cum-Cook; 5. The certificates Annexures P-11, P-15 and P-16 have originated from the office of the Police Department. The applicant had been working for 8 hours daily, as per certificates. The veracity and genuineness cannot be doubted. The case of the applicant merits consideration; 6. Accordingly, the transferred application is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the applicants as daily wagers from the date of their initial appointment and regularization on completion of 8 years, with consequential benefits.” 6 8. In the aforesaid judgment, erstwhile Tribunal categorically held that certificates issued by the concerned police stations clearly establish that petitioners had been working for eight hours per day and as such, were entitled to be treated as daily wagers from the date of their initial appointments, but since liberty was reserved to the respondents to consider the case of the applicants as daily wagers from the date of their initial appointments and to regularize them on completion of eight years with consequential benefits, respondents vide order dated 23.07.2021 (Annexure P-9) after having considered the case of the petitioners in light of judgment passed by Tribunal, rejected the claim of the petitioners on the pretext that prior to 18.05.2010 they were employed on part time basis and certificates, if any, issued by concerned police stations were of no relevance, as the same had not been issued with the prior approval of the competent authority. 9. At this stage, it would be apt to take note of the fact that judgment dated 16.05.2016 passed by erstwhile Tribunal had been laid challenge by way of CWP No. 3214 of 2016, but same was dismissed vide judgment dated 10.05.2019 (Annexure P-8), as a result thereof, mandate contained in order dated 16.05.2016 passed by erstwhile Tribunal in T.A. No. 4073 of 2015 has attained finality. If the concluding paragraph of the order passed by erstwhile Tribunal is 7 perused in its entirety, there appears to be merit in the contention of learned counsel representing the petitioners that erstwhile tribunal had disposed of the application with a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the applicants i.e petitioners herein as daily wagers from the date of their initial appointments and for regularization on completion of 8 years, with consequential benefits, meaning thereby, no scope was left for the respondents to decide “whether petitioners are daily wagers employees or not?”., rather Tribunal had held them as daily wagers from the date of their initial appointments and thereafter, direction was issued to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners as daily wagers from the date of their initial appointments and for regularization on completion of 8 years. 10. If para Nos. 5 and 6 of order dated 16.05.2016 passed by erstwhile Tribunal are perused, it clearly reveals that certificates issued by the concerned police Stations were found to be genuine and it was specifically observed by the Tribunal that their veracity and genuineness cannot be doubted. Tribunal after having found merit in the claim of the petitioners, directed the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners as daily wagers from the date of their initial appointments, meaning thereby, respondents, while doing the needful in aforesaid terms, were to consider the petitioners as daily wagers 8 from the date of their initial appointments. If it is so, they were required to be given the benefit of regularization in terms of policy of regularization framed by the Government of Himachal Pradesh after completion of seven years of service by the petitioners from the date of their initial appointments, which though was shown as part time basis, but work of eight hours per day was extracted from the petitioners, as was subsequently certified by the concerned police stations. 11. It is also not in dispute that pursuant to the direction issued by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in order dated 6.4.2010 passed in CWP-T No.15603 of 2008, titled Mast Ram vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others (Annexure P-2), the respondents regularized the service of aforesaid Mast Ram, who was similarly situate to the petitioners, from the date of his initial appointment. Aforesaid Mast Ram was also initially appointed on Part Time Water Carrier-Cum-Cook, but since he was not given benefit of service rendered by him on part time basis, while regularizing his services, he approached this Court by way of CWP-T No.15603 of 2008, which came to be disposed of with a direction to the respondents to permit the petitioner to work as per letter dated 18.5.1999 and to consider his case for regularization in accordance with law within a period of ten weeks. In terms of aforesaid judgment passed by Co-ordinate Bench 9 of this Court, respondents straightaway regularized the service of afore petitioner from the date of his initial appointment. 12. Leaving everything aside, once it is not in dispute that judgment dated 16.05.2016 passed by erstwhile Tribunal in T.A No.4073 of 2015 has attained finality and therein a specific direction stood issued to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners as daily wagers from the date of their initial appointments for regularization on completion of eight years, there was no occasion, if any, for the respondents to consider petitioners as Part Time Water Carrier-Cum- Cook against the posts w.e.f. 21.07.2008, 14.12.2008 and 10.08.2006 till 18.05.2010, when their services were converted from part time to daily wagers, rather in terms of afore order passed by erstwhile Tribunal, petitioners were required to be considered as daily wagers from the dates of their initial appointments as Daily Wager Water Carrier-Cum-Cook w.e.f. 21.07.1998, 14.12.1998 and 27.08.1996. If it is so, their services were required to be regularized after completion of seven years daily wage service with 240 days in each calendar year, and such period was to commence form the date of their initial appointments i.e. 21.07.1998, 14.12.1998 and 27.08.1996, respectively. 13. Consequently, in view of the above, this Court finds merit in the present petition and accordingly, same is allowed. The 10 impugned order dated 23.07.2021 (Annexure P-9) is quashed and set-aside with a direction to the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioners from the dates of their initial engagements as Part Time Water Carrier-Cum-Cook i.e. 21.07.1998, 14.12.1998 and 27.08.1996, respectively. Since it is not in dispute that petitioners have been litigating since 2011 for their genuine grievance, coupled with the fact that prayer made on their behalf stands accepted by way of instant order, this Court, though sees no reason to grant monetary benefits for entire period, but certainly they shall be entitled to arrears, if any, on account of regularization from due date for a period of three years prior to filing of the petition. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. Sandeep Sharma), Judge September 12, 2025 (shankar)