( 2025:HHC:23639 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No.7024 of 2024 Decided on: 22nd July, 2025 _________________________________________________________________ Bilu Ram .... Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. …Respondents _________________________________________________________________ Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua 1Whether approved for reporting? _________________________________________________________________ For the petitioner: Mr. Devender Kumar, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Rajat Choudhary, Assistant Advocate General. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Petitioner seeks regularization of his services with effect from the year 2019 i.e. on completion of four years of daily wage services as per State Regularization Policy dated 02.12.2023. 2. Heard learned counsel for parties and considered the case file. 3. The Case 3(i) Petitioner was engaged as casual labour in Forest 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes ( 2025:HHC:23639 - 2 - Department during the year 1987. He worked in the respondent-department during the calendar years 1987, 1988 & 1994. The respondents did not permit the petitioner to work after the year 1994. 3(ii) Petitioner instituted Bilu Ram Vs. State of H.P. & Ors.2 wherein it was held as under: - “9. Therefore, these writ petitions are disposed of as follows: In case any of the petitioners has a case that he has been retrenched without following the procedure under the Industrial Disputes Act and in case the employer requires additional manpower on account of additional work requiring the engagement of fresh hands, he may make an appropriate representation offering himself for engagement, subject to verification of the factual position regarding the retrenchment, the additional work, requirement of fresh hands etc., appropriate action shall be taken by the employer concerned for considering the case of the petitioners, subject to their fitness and being within the cut off age for such engagement. However, we make it clear that in view of the submissions made by the learned Deputy Advocate General that they are already having surplus manpower and in view of the submissions made by the learned standing counsel appearing for the Electricity Board that they do not require any fresh hands, any such fresh engagement shall be made only after getting approval from the Executive Director (Personnel) of the Electricity Board and Engineer-in- Chief/Head of the Department as far as PWD/I & PH department as the case may be. We also make it clear that this judgment shall not stand in the case of any of the 2 CWP No. 9440/2012 decided a/w connected matters on 20.12.2012 ( 2025:HHC:23639 - 3 - petitioners, if so desire, taking recourse to the remedy, if any, under the Industrial Disputes Act.” 3(iii) Pursuant to the above decision, the petitioner preferred a representation in the year 2013 to respondent No.1. Petitioner’s case was considered and he was engaged with effect from the year 2015. According to the respondents, the said engagement was on bill basis and on availability of funds. The petitioner has placed on record mandays chart prepared by Range Forest Officer, Bahli Range, Sarahan for the years 2015 to March, 2020, in terms thereof, the petitioner had served with the respondents for 333 days in the year 2015, 328 days in the year 2016 and 251 days in the year 2019. In the year 2020 up-to March 2020, the petitioner had served for 68 days. It is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that even during this period, respondents had deliberately & forcefully gave artificial breaks in petitioner’s service and are following this illegal practice even to date. As per reply, the mandays chart enclosed with the petition had been prepared wrongly as the work was executed by the petitioner on the basis of schedule of rates and not as per labour rates. The petitioner had worked on bill basis ( 2025:HHC:23639 - 4 - intermittently in Sarahan, Bahli and Rampur Ranges. There was no mention of days in the bills. According to the respondents, the petitioner had worked on bill basis and was not a daily wager of the respondent-Department, hence, his claim for regularization of service is not tenable. 3(iv) In Pyare Lal Vs. State of HP & Ors.3, respondents’ contention for denying regularization to the petitioner therein, on the ground of his engagement being on bill basis was turned down. Engagement on bill basis was held to be not a determinative factor. Respondents were directed to consider the case of the petitioner, therein, for regularization in terms of the State policy after taking into consideration the period for which the petitioner therein had worked with the respondents irrespective of the manner in which he was paid. Relevant paras from the decision are as under: - “6. In the case in hand, the respondents have submitted that the petitioner has not worked for 240 days in any calendar year. They have not submitted the mandays charge, showing the engagement of the petitioner per year since 2010. The only material placed on record is the details provided in Annexure R-3, which leads to no conclusion, as from this 3 CWP No. 1529 of 2020, decided on 08.08.2023 ( 2025:HHC:23639 - 5 - document, it cannot be inferred that for how many days, the petitioner has worked in a particular year. 7. As regards the contention of the respondents that the petitioner has been engaged on bill basis will not be the determining factor. In Vikram Singh vs. State of H.P. & others, CWPOA No. 6748 of 2019, decided on 22.7.2022, this Court had examined the implication of payment of hourly basis to a workman vis-à-vis his entitlement for regularization on the basis of his continuous service as daily wager. It has been held that the relevance would be attached to the total working period irrespective of the manner in which the payment was made by the employer. 8. In light of above discussion, the petition is allowed with direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization in terms of the policy of the State Government by taking into consideration the entire period after January, 2010 for which the petitioner has worked with the respondents irrespective of the manner in which he was paid. The entire exercise in terms of this order including the passing of final order shall be completed by respondent No.3 within a period of two months from the date when a copy of this order is submitted before such authority. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.” It is not in dispute that the respondents have implemented the above decision and considered the period of service rendered by the petitioner, therein, on bill basis, for the purpose of his claim for regularization of services. The ( 2025:HHC:23639 - 6 - claim was though rejected eventually on the ground that the petitioner, therein, was found to have not completed 240 days during the years in question. In Ram Singh Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Others4, it was held that distinction being created by the respondents between a daily waged and a bill based worker is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. That there was no intelligible differentia between a daily waged and bill based worker. The right of regularization in terms of the policy of the State Government cannot be denied on the count that nomenclature of the service is not that of a daily wager, but a bill based worker. Paras appropriate to context go as under:- “5. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is serving with the respondents-Department since 2015 continuously by putting in more than 240 days in each calendar. It appears that in order to deny such kind of workmen, the benefits of regularization, respondent-State has come with the nomenclature of “bill basis” but, fact of the matter still remains that be it a daily wager or a bill basis worker, he is serving the Department regularly putting in more than 240 days in each calendar. It could be disputed before the Court that at the time when the writ petition was filed in terms of the policy of the 4 CWP No. 789 of 2024 decided on 04.07.2024 ( 2025:HHC:23639 - 7 - State Government in vogue, right of regularization accrued upon a person post completion of 5 years of continuous service. Said policy dated 22.04.2020 on the subject regularization of daily waged workers/contingent paid workers is on record appended with the rejoinder as Annexure P-8. 6. This Court of the considered view that the distinction, which is now being created by the respondents-Department between a daily wage worker and a bill base worker is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Be it a daily wage worker or a bill base worker, he is rendering the same service to the Department. Therefore, in the absence of their being any intelligible differentia between a daily wage worker and bill base worker, the classification that has been made by the Department cannot pass the touch stone of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The right of regularization in terms of the policy of the State Government dated 22.04.2020, cannot be denied to the petitioner simply on the count that now his nomenclature is not that of a daily wager, but a bill worker. In case, the petitioner fulfills the criteria of regularization made in Annexure P-8, then, he also has a right to be conferred regularization and the same cannot be defeated simply on the basis of the nomenclature that now stands assigned to him by the respondent.” Similar is the ratio of the decision in Neter Singh Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors.5. 5 CWP No. 9085 of 2023, decided on 21.11.2024 ( 2025:HHC:23639 - 8 - 4. In view of above legal position, which has been accepted by the respondent-Forest Department, mere nomenclature of engagement as on bill basis instead of working on daily wage basis, cannot be taken against the claim of the petitioner to be considered for regularization of his services in accordance with the applicable policy. The aforesaid legal position has been accepted by the respondents and implemented as well in Pyare Lal’s3 case. In the instant case, the mandays chart of the petitioner has been placed on record at Annexure P-3, which reflects that the petitioner has completed much more than 240 days of service in each calendar year with effect from the year 2015 onwards. The said mandays chart has not even been disputed by the respondents, save and except to the extent that the petitioner was appointed on such dates on bill basis rather than on daily wage basis. Therefore, in light of the above discussion, this writ petition is allowed with direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization as per the applicable State Government Policy and keeping in view observations made in this judgment by taking into consideration the entire period for which the petitioner had ( 2025:HHC:23639 - 9 - served with the respondent-Forest Department in terms of his mandays chart (Annexure P-3) irrespective of the manner, in which he was paid. This exercise be carried out within six weeks. The order so passed be communicated to the petitioner. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge July 22, 2025 Rohit