( 2025:HHC:23622 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWPOA No. 3033 of 2019. Reserved on: 17 th July, 2025. Decided on : 22 nd July, 2025. Rangila Ram & Ors. .. Petitioners. Versus Municipal Corporation Shimla & Ors. ....Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner: Mr. Amrick Singh, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Mukul Sood, Advocate, for respondent No.1. Mr. Hamender Singh Chandel, Advocate, for respondents No.2 and 3. Satyen Vaidya, Judge. By way of instant petition, the petitioners are seeking direction against respondent No.1- Municipal Corporation, Shimla to regularize the 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 ( 2025:HHC:23622 ) services of the petitioners as per the existing regularization policy and further to grant them pay scale as is being granted to other similarly situated drivers in the Corporation. 2. The case as set up by the petitioners is that the Municipal Corporation, Shimla (for short “the Corporation”) issued advertisement inviting the applications for the post of driver to be recruited in the Corporation. In response, petitioners applied and were selected. 3. The grievance of the petitioners is that instead of Corporation, they were issued appointment letters by respondent No.2 i.e. Shimla Environment Heritage Conservation and Beautification Society (for short “SEHB Society”) 4. Petitioners claim that their appointments are for all intents and purpose on the establishment of Corporation. The petitioners have also alleged that even their salary is being paid by the Corporation. 3 ( 2025:HHC:23622 ) 5. The Corporation and SEHB Society have filed their separate replies. However, certain common averments have been made to the effect that the SEHB Society is an entity distinct from the Corporation having registration under the Society Registration Act. The affairs of SEHB Society are managed by its governing body. The Health Officer of the Corporation is the Member Secretary and Executive Officer of the SEHB Society. 6. SEHB Society for the time being is engaged in door-to-door garbage collection within the Municipal limits of Shimla and its further transportation to treatment plant(s). 7. It is also the case of the respondents that the garbage dumpers have been purchased by the Corporation and it had been decided that the drivers for driving such dumpers would be out sourced and employed through SEHB Society. The SEHB Society has placed on record documents in the shape of joining reports of the petitioners as also the 4 ( 2025:HHC:23622 ) employment agreements executed by them with the SEHB Society to contend that the petitioners were engaged and employed by the SEHB Society and the petitioner had joined their respective assignments voluntarily. 8. In addition, the Corporation has highlighted that the SEHB Society has to generate its funds from services provided by it. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the entire material on record carefully. 10. Though, the petitioners have specifically alleged that they had applied for the post of drivers in the Corporation in response to an advertisement issued by the Corporation in that behalf, however, no such advertisement has been placed on record. 11. Petitioners have filed a document addressed to petitioner No.1 which is a call letter for interview issued by the Health Officer of the Corporation on 31.05.2010. Except for this 5 ( 2025:HHC:23622 ) document, no other document in respect of other petitioners has been placed on record. It is on the basis of this document that the petitioners alleged that they were called for interview by the Corporation. The respondents have duly explained that the Corporation was not at all involved in the recruitment of the petitioners. Since, the Corporation Health Officer is the Member Secretary and Executive Officer of the SEHB Society, the interview call letter on his letter head and under his seal does not imply that the Corporation had initiated any selection process for recruiting the drivers. 12. Further, the case of the petitioners is completely demolished by the appointment letters issued to them. The petitioners themselves have placed on record one of such letter issued to petitioner No.1 by the SEHB Society. There is no ambiguity in the contents of such letter. In pursuance to the appointment letters issued by the SEHB Society, the petitioners had joined their services as 6 ( 2025:HHC:23622 ) drivers in the year 2010 without any objections or reservations. The instant petition filed by them in the month of December, 2013 clearly appears to be an afterthought activated by reasons which cannot be said to be bonafide. In addition, there is no rebuttal to the documents relied upon by the SEHB Society which reveal that the petitioner had accepted the appointments as drivers in the SEHB Society voluntarily and without any objection. 13. Lastly, the contention of the petitioners that they have been paid by the Corporation has also remained unsubstantiated. Petitioners are relying upon account statement of the SEHB Society for the financial year commencing from 01.04.2011 to 31.03.2012 wherein one entry is recorded as “ by M.C. Shimla against driver salary” and amount reflected under such entry is Rs.13,10,144/-. The contention so raised also does not prove the case of the petitioners for the simple reason that the document they had relied upon is the account 7 ( 2025:HHC:23622 ) statement of the SEHB Society. Admittedly, the SEHB Society is rendering services to the Corporation against consideration. Thus, the above noticed entry cannot be taken to be a circumstance to prove the allegations of the petitioners, more particularly, keeping in view all other attending circumstances brought on record. 14. In light of above discussion, there is no merit in the instant petition and the same is dismissed accordingly. All pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Satyen Vaidya) Judge 22nd July, 2025. (jai)