IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 8518 of 2024 Decided on: 20.08.2025 Surat Ram …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. .…Respondents. ………………………………………………………………………………. Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner: Mr. Manohar Lal Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Vishwadeep Sharma, Additional Advocate General. Jyotsna Rewal Dua , J Petitioner seeks direction to the respondents to confer upon him work charge status/regularization on completion of five years of continuous service with all consequential benefits as per applicable State Regularization Policy. 2. Petitioner was initially engaged as daily waged worker with the respondents-Forest Department in January 2014. He worked continuously thereafter and completed 240 days in each calendar year. This assertion of the petitioner is borne out from his Mandays Chart (Annexure P-1) prepared 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes 2 by the respondents. In terms of this document, the petitioner had completed 244 days in the year 2014, 242 days in the year 2015, 241 days in the year 2016, 240 days in the year 2017 and 240 days in the year 2018, 253 days in the year 2019 and 240 days in the year 2020. Annexure P-1, the Mandays Chart of the petitioner, has not been denied by the respondents. Petitioner’s case is that the respondents had formed a Screening Committee for evaluating cases of eligible daily waged workers for the purpose of regularizing their services on completion of requisite number of years of service. Referring to Annexure P-3 dated 21.02.2022, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was also found eligible for regularization of his services as his name appeared at serial No.4 thereof. Since regularization was not ordered by the respondents, therefore, the petitioner has instituted this writ petition. 3. The respondents have not disputed petitioner’s assertion of having been engaged in the respondents- Department in January 2014 and having worked thereafter for more than 240 days in each calendar year. The only defence taken to oppose petitioner’s regularization is on account of his 3 having been engaged allegedly on bill basis and further that there is no policy of the State Government to regularize service of the incumbents engaged on bill basis. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the case file. 4(i) In Pyare Lal Vs. State of HP & Ors2., 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 document, it cannot be inferred that for how many days, the petitioner has worked in a particular year. 2 CWP No. 1529/2020, decided on 08.08.2023. 4 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 an admitted position that the respondents 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 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. 5 4(ii) In Ram Singh Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Others3, 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 are as follows:- “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 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. 3 CWP No.789/2024 decided on 04.07.2024 6 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.” The aforesaid judgment, passed by the Hon’ble Coordinate Bench, has been affirmed by the Hon’ble Division Bench in State of H.P. Vs. Ram Singh4. Against the said judgment, State of Himachal Pradesh moved the Hon’ble Apex Court by instituting State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Ram Singh5, which was dismissed on 08.08.2025. 4LPA No. 60 of 2025, decided on 27.02.2025 5 SLP (C)No.20695, decided on 08.08.2025. 7 4(iii) Similar is the ratio of the decision in Mohar Singh Vs. State of H.P. & Ors.6 State of H.P. & Ors. Vs. Mohar Singh7 preferred against the aforesaid decision was dismissed by the Hon’ble Division Bench. In view of above legal position, mere nomenclature of engagement as on bill basis instead of working on daily wage basis, cannot be taken against the well established claim of the petitioner to be considered for conferment of work charge status/regularization of his service in accordance with the applicable regularization policy. 5. In light of above discussion, this writ petition is allowed. Respondents are directed to confer the work charge status/regularization upon the petitioner in terms of the applicable policy of the State Government within six weeks from today with all consequential benefits, however, actual monetary benefits shall be restricted to three years from the date of filing of this petition. 6 CWP No. 791 /2024 decided on 11.09.2024 7 LPA No. 251/2025 decided on 23.05.2025 8 The present petition is disposed of in above terms. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge 20th August, 2025 (R.Atal)