IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.5093 of 2022 Date of Decision: 23.06.2025 _______________________________________________________ Pawan Kumar …….Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and Others ….Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Sparsh Bhushan, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol and Mr. B.C.Verma, Additional Advocate Generals and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral): Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner, who was given appointment on compassionate grounds against Class-IV post on daily wage basis in the year 2016, is that though he has completed five years of service on daily wage basis, but yet, he is not being regularized and as such, directions are required to be issued to the respondents to regularize services of the petitioner from the date, he completed five years of service on daily wage basis, in terms of Policy of Regularization. 2. Facts of the case, as emerge from the record, are that in the year 2013, father of the petitioner, who was working as Beldar with the respondent-department, expired and thereafter in the year 2014, petitioner applied for compassionate appointment, but once such prayer of him was not considered, he approached this Court by way of CWP 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 No.8056 of 2014, which came to be disposed of vide judgment dated 05.11.2014 (Annexure P-1), whereby direction came to be issued to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment, in view of law laid down by the Honb’le Apex Court as well as this Court in catena of cases, as detailed in aforesaid judgment, within a period of ten weeks. Since needful never came to be done within the time stipulated in the aforesaid judgment, petitioner filed COPC No.237 of 2016, which ultimately came to be disposed of vide order dated 17.08.2016, on the statement given by learned Deputy Advocate General that mandate contained in the judgment, alleged to have been violated, stands complied with. 3. Pursuant to his having made application in the year 2014, petitioner was granted compassionate appointment in the year 2016 and since then, he has been serving in the Department concerned on daily wage basis. Though it has been prayed on behalf of the petitioner that he may be regularized w.e.f. 05.11.2014, when direction was issued by Division Bench of this Court to consider his case, but learned counsel representing the petitioner, on instructions, fairly states that petitioner would be content and satisfied in case his services are regularized from the year 2021, when he has completed five years of service on daily wage basis. 4. Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, while making this Court peruse reply filed on behalf of respondents, 3 though vehemently opposed the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner for his regularization w.e.f. 05.11.2014, but fairly states that on account of his having completed five years service on daily wage basis in the year 2021, his case is required to be considered for regularization from afore date. 5. Since it is not in dispute that in year 2021, there was a policy to regularize the service of daily wage employee, after his/her having completed five years service, there appears to be no justification for respondents to deny such relief to the petitioner. 6. Consequently, in view of the above, present petition is allowed with the direction to respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization from the date, he completed five years of service on daily wage basis, in terms of Policy of Regularization, prevalent in the year 2021. Since petitioner has been fighting for his rightful claim for years together, this Court hopes and trusts that needful shall be done expeditiously, preferably, within a period of four weeks. Since petitioner has approached this Court well within time for his rightful claim, he shall be entitled to consequential benefits from the date, he became eligible for regularization. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. p` (Sandeep Sharma), Judge June 23, 2025 (Rajeev Raturi)