IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 8519 of 2024 Date of Decision:04.07.2025 _______________________________________________________ Jeevan Kumar …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others … Respondents ______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Manohar Lal Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol and Mr. B.C.Verma, Additional Advocate Generals and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. _______________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for following main relief:- “(i) That the impugned communication dated 18.04.2024 Annexure P-4 may kindly be held illegal and the same may kindly be quashed, keeping in view the law laid down by the Hon’ble High Court in identical matters; (ii) That writ in the nature of mandamus may very kindly be issued by directing the respondents to give work charged status/regularization to the petitioner immediate after the completion of five years of continuous service, with effect from due date, as per the policy of the State Government; (iii) That the respondents may further be directed to give the all consequential benefits including monetary benefits in 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 favour of the petitioner with effect from the due date till the date of actual realization with interest @ 9% per annum.” 2. Precisely, the facts, as emerge from the pleadings adduced on record by the respective parties, are that petitioner herein was engaged by the respondent-Department on daily wage basis in the year, 2015 and he is still working with the respondent, as is evident from the mandays chart placed on record as Annexure P-1, which has been otherwise not refuted by the respondents in their reply. On 22.04.2020, Government of Himachal Pradesh framed the policy to regularize the services of daily wage employees after their having rendered five service on daily wage basis with 240 days in each calendar year. Though, petitioner had become eligible for regularization in the year, 2020, but such prayer of him came to be repeatedly rejected on the pretext that he was not a daily wage worker, rather a bill base worker. Though, bill base worker has been not defined anywhere, but as per the respondents, bill base worker are those, who are engaged pursuant to quotation and subsequently paid accordingly for the work done by them. Besides petitioner, there are number of persons, who though were working on daily wage basis with 240 days in each calendar year, but also denied benefit of regularization and as such, they approached this Court by way of writ petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 3 3. Similarly situate persons, namely Sh. Khem Raj, Sh. Mohar Singh, Sh. Gain Chand, Sh. Narayan Singh, Sh. Ram Singh, Sh. Khub Ram, Sh. Jeevan Lal and Sh. Netar Singh approached this Court by way of writ petitions and same were allowed. In two cases, titled Jeevan Lal vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Mohar Singh vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, though respondents-State had filed LPA’s against the judgments passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, but same were dismissed. In another writ petition bearing CWP No. 789 of 2024, titled Ram Singh vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others (Annexure P-5), LPA was also filed, but same was dismissed vide judgment dated 27.02.2025 passed by Principal Division Bench of this Court in CMP(M) No.121 of 2025 in LPA No.60 of 2025. 4. If the reply filed by the respondents, is read in its entirety, there is no dispute with regard to initial appointment of the petitioner w.e.f. 01.01.2015 and his continuation in the office till date. However, attempt has been made to defeat the rightful claim of the petitioner on the ground that petitioner was not appointed on daily wage basis, rather he was given work on quotation basis. There is no specific denial, if any, in the reply qua the mandays chart, thereby indicating that petitioner had worked for more than 240 days in each calendar. Interestingly, though respondents have claimed that petitioner was 4 working on daily wage basis, but not even a single bill/quotation, if any, has been placed on record to substantiate such fact, if any. 5. To the contrary, petitioner with a view to prove his working in the department on daily wage basis with 240 days in each calendar year has placed on record mandays chart, which has been duly signed by the Range Forest Officer, Wild Life Range, Sainj. If mandays chart placed on record, is perused in its entirety, it nowhere suggests that petitioner herein was working on bill basis, rather his presence at work was being recorded and monitored regularly by the Range Forest Officer, Wild Life Range, Sainj. Besides above, no document has been adduced on record to suggest that amount, if any, was credited in the bank account of the petitioner pursuant to quotation/tender, if any, submitted by him. 6. In nutshell, stand of the State is that w.e.f. the year, 2015 petitioner was not engaged on daily wage basis, but on bill basis that is to say that bills are raised for the purpose of making good emoluments that are due to petitioner, hence is not entitled for regularization, but as has been noted hereinabove, no bill has been placed on record. Even if it is presumed that bill are raised for the purpose of making good emoluments, but such act, if any, will not make appointment of the petitioner on bill basis, especially when mandays chart placed on record clearly reveals that petitioner has 5 been working on daily wage basis with 240 days in each calendar year, department may have been raising bill to make payment to the daily wager, but that would not automatically convert the service of the petitioner from daily wage to bill basis. Since, it is not in dispute that petitioner has been working since 2015 continuously with 240 days in each calendar year, there appears to be merit in the contention of Mr. Manohar Lal Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, that new nomenclature i.e bill basis has been attempted to be introduced by the respondents to avoid regularization, to which otherwise petitioner has become eligible on account of promulgation of policy of 2020 (Annexure P-2). Though, this Court is fully convinced that petitioner’s initial engagement was on daily wage basis and bill basis concept has been purposely introduced to defeat the rightful claim of the petitioner, but even if it is presumed that petitioner herein was engaged on bill basis that would not make any difference for the reason that petitioner had been working in the department for more than 240 days in each calendar year, as is/was being done by another set of daily wage employees, who were also given appointment on daily wage basis. Distinction, which has been attempted to be created by the respondent-Department between a daily wage worker and a bill base worker is otherwise not sustainable in the eye of law being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, as has been held by 6 Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Ram Singh’s case (supra). Relevant paras Nos. 6 and 7 of afore judgment are reproduced herein below:- “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. 7. Accordingly, in this view of the matter, this writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to confer work charge status/regularization upon the petitioner in terms of the regularization policy of the State Government dated 22.04.2020 within a period of six weeks from today with all consequential benefits. However, actual monetary benefits shall be restricted three years as from the date of the filing of this writ petition. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of.” 7. It is not in dispute that aforesaid judgment rendered by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has attained finality on account of dismissal of LPA No.60 of 2025, having been filed by the respondent- State. 7 8. Leaving everything aside, once learned Deputy Advocate General has been not able to dispute that similar situate persons, names of whom have been given hereinabove, have been also granted similar benefits by this Court, this Court sees no impediment in accepting the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner. 9. Consequently, in view of the above, this Court finds merit in the present petition and accordingly same is allowed. The respondents are directed to regularize the services of the petitioner in terms of regularization policy dated 22.04.2020, within a period of six weeks from today with all consequential benefits. However, actual monetary benefits shall be restricted for a period of three years prior to the date of filing of the petition. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge July 04, 2025 (shankar)