IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 3191 of 2019 Date of Decision: 22.09.2025 _______________________________________________________ Pawan Kumar …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & another … Respondents ______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. A.K. Gupta, 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): On 17.01.1996, the petitioner was appointed on contract basis as Instructor and since afore date, he has been working as Instructor. 2. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. A.K. Gupta, learned counsel representing the petitioner, is that though in terms of the policy of regularization framed by the Government of Himachal Pradesh, the services of the petitioner were required to be regularized after his having completed five years of service 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 from the date of his initial appointment, but his services were regularized only on 05.08.2013 i.e. after a lapse of17 years from the date of his initial appointment. 3. Prior to filing the petition at hand, petitioner approached this Court by way of CWP No. 3258 of 2011, which was disposed of vide order/judgment dated 08.10.2012 (Annexure P-4), whereby direction was issued to the respondents to examine the claim of the petitioner vis-à-vis other similarly situate persons. In terms of the aforesaid order passed by this Court, respondents regularized the services of the petitioner w.e.f.14.08.2013, but his prayer with regard to regularization from the date when similarly situate persons were regularized, was not considered and as such, he has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein for the following main relief:- “That the respondents may be ordered to regularize the services of the petitioner from the date Smt. Rajani Sharma and other similarly situate were regularized with all benefits incidental thereof.” 4. While referring to Office order dated 12.04.2002 (Annexure P-3), learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that one Smt. Rajni Sharma, who was similarly situate to the petitioner, was regularized from the date she completed five 3 years of service from the date of her initial appointment. However, in the case of the petitioner, a different yardstick has been applied. Learned counsel representing the petitioner also invited attention of this Court to appointment orders dated 17.01.1996 and 14.5.1995 (Annexures P-1 & P-2), to state that both the petitioner as well as Smt. Rajni Sharma were appointed on contract basis on the same terms and conditions by the same authority, but interestingly the services of the petitioner were not regularized after his having completed five years, whereas the services of similarly situate Smt. Rajni Sharma were regularized after her having completed five years of service, which action of the respondents is not only arbitrary but also amounts to violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 5. Pursuant to the notices issued in the instant proceedings, the respondent-State has field reply under the signatures of the Director, Technical Education, Vocational & Industrial Training, Himachal Pradesh, wherein the facts, as have been noticed hereinabove, have not been disputed, but an attempt has been made to refute the claim of the petitioner on the ground that vide letter dated 05.08.2013 and subsequent corrigendum, the Government conveyed its approval for 4 appointment of ten employees including the petitioner on Class- III & Class –IV posts on the basis of their educational qualification, who were earlier engaged by the Principals of the respective Government Polytechnics under Non-budgetary Centrally sponsored Community Development Scheme funded by the Ministry of Human Resource Development, Government of India. In compliance of aforesaid approval of the Government, appointment orders were issued by the replying respondents vide office order dated 05.08.2013 and subsequently the petitioner submitted his joining report dated 06.08.2013. It is averred in the reply that petitioner alongwith 9 other similarly situate incumbents was appointed afresh in the respondent- Department with the prior approval of the Government in the year 2013 and the petitioner accepted the aforesaid appointment and submitted his joining in the year 2013 and as such, it is not open for him to raise this issue after a lapse of six years from the date of his joining in the respondent-Department. It is further averred in the reply that petitioner has nowhere assailed the appointment order dated 05.08.2013, wherein it was clearly mentioned that appointment on regular basis was being offered to the candidates, who had been engaged under the Non- 5 budgetary Centrally Sponsored Community Development Scheme funded by the Ministry of Human Resource Development, Government of India. 6. Interestingly, the reply filed by the respondents, if perused in its entirety, is completely silent about the regularization of similarly situate person, Smt. Rajni Sharma, who was appointed by the Principal of Government Technical College, Sundernagar, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh, on contract basis vide order dated 14.05.1995, whereas the petitioner was also appointed on contract on similar terms and conditions by the same authority vide order dated 17.01.1996. In the case of Rajni Sharma, the pleas which are otherwise sought to be raised by the respondents, to refute the claim of the petitioner have been negated as such, such pleas are not available to the respondents. Since the service of the petitioner were regularized vide order dated 5.8.2013, there was no occasion for the petitioner to challenge the same and only grievance of the petitioner is with respect to the date from which, such regularization is sought by the petitioner. 7. Prior to filing the petition at hand, petitioner approached this Court by way of CWP No. 3258 of 2011, 6 specifically alleging therein that similarly situate persons were being considered for regularization, whereas his case was not being considered for regularization. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, taking note of aforesaid allegation of the petitioner, specifically directed the respondents to regularize the petitioner alongwith other similarly situate persons, and more particularly, persons, who were appointed later in point of time than the petitioner. Though, in terms of aforesaid judgment/order passed by this Court, respondents regularized the services of the petitioner, but from 05.08.2013, whereas Smt. Rajni Sharma was regularized from the date she completed five years service on contract despite the fact that both the petitioner and Smt. Rajni Sharma were appointed on contract by the same authority on the same terms and conditions, coupled with the fact that at the relevant time policy of regularization provided for regularization of contract employees after completion of five years service, petitioner ought to have been regularized from the date he completed five years of service on contract. Since the petitioner in the case at hand was appointed on contact basis vide order dated 17.01.1996, and it is not the case of the respondents that during the aforesaid period, he never worked or remained 7 absent, his services were also required to be regularized after five years of contract service in terms of regularization policy framed by the Government of Himachal Pradesh. 8. Mr. B.C.Verma, learned Additional Advocate General, attempted to argue that present petition is barred by delay and laches. To substantiate his aforesaid contention, he placed reliance upon the judgment passed by this Court in CWP No. 10147 of 2024, titled as Bhajju Ram vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation and others, whereby this Court, having taken note of various judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court and this Court held that fence-sitter cannot be extended any relief by Court of law. However, in the case at hand, petitioner never remained a fence-sitter, rather he was fully aware of his right, which is why, at the first instance, he approached this Court in the year 2011 for redressal of his grievance and thereafter, after passing of order dated 05.08.2013, whereby he was granted regularization w.e.f. 05.08.2013, approached this Court in the instant proceedings. 9. True it is that after passing of order dated 05.08.2013, petitioner remained silent for almost six years, but once the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, while passing order 8 dated 08.10.2012 in CWP No. 3258 of 2011, had specifically directed the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization alongwith similarly situate persons, coupled with the fact that similarly situate person, namely Smt. Rajni Sharma, was granted benefit of the policy of regularization and was regularized after her having completed five years service on contract basis, the plea of delay and laches sought to be raised at this juncture by the respondents may not be available. However, having taken note of the fact that petitioner approached this Court after a lapse of six years, consequential benefits, if admissible pursuant to regularization, may be restricted. 10. Consequently in view of the above, this Court finds merit in the present petition and accordingly, same is allowed. Impugned order dated 05.08.2013 is quashed and set aside, and the respondents are directed to regularize the services of the petitioner from the date he completed five years of service from the date of his initial appointment as was done in the case of Smt. Rajni Sharma. Since petitioner approached this Court after six years, actual monetary benefits to the petitioner shall be 9 restricted to three years prior to filing of CWP No. 3258 of 2011. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge September 22, 2025 (shankar)