1 2025:HHC:28018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CMP(M) No.1231 of 2025 and LPA No. 550 of 2025 Decided on: 18.08.2025 State of H.P. and others ......applicants/appellants Versus Netar Singh ...non-applicant/respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the applicants/appellants: Mr. Pranay Pratap Singh, Additional Advocate General. G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice (Oral) CMP(M) No.1231 of 2025 Keeping in view the averments made in the application, duly supported by an affidavit, delay of 108 days in filing the appeal is condoned. The application stands disposed of. 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:28018 LPA No. 550 of 2025 2. The challenge herein is to the order of the learned Single Judge, whereby CWP No.9085 of 2023 titled Neter Singh vs. State of H.P. and others, filed by the writ petitioner was allowed on 21.11.2024 and directions were issued to regularize the services of the petitioner in terms of the policy of regularization (Annexure P-6) dated 28.03.2022. 3. A perusal of the said policy would go on to show that after 4 years of continuous service with a minimum of 240 days in a calendar year, the employee as such is entitled to be regularized whereas for the tribal areas, the period is lesser. 4. The claim as such of the employee had been found to be justified since from the perusal of the writ petition, it is clear that the employee as such initially had been engaged in the year 2005 and his services had been retrenched in May 2009. By virtue of the award of the Labour Court dated 06.03.2013 (Annexure P-2) and on account of the undertaking given that an opportunity of re-employment will be afforded to 3 2025:HHC:28018 the petitioner by taking recourse to the provisions of Section 25H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the benefit of re- engagement had been given in 2017. 5. Resultantly, the necessary representation had been filed on 24.09.2023 (Annexure P-5) after the expiry of 4 years, claiming regularization, on the basis of the regularization policy. The defence as such of the State was only on account of the fact that the engagement was on “bill basis” and therefore it sought to deny the policy of regularization without passing any order of rejection as such after the legal notice was served. 6. It is in such circumstances, the learned Single Judge while referring to the earlier order passed by him in CWP No.789 of 2024 titled as Ram Singh vs. State of H.P. and others decided on 04.07.2024 held that it is only the nomenclature which has been created by the Forest Department to avoid the benefit of regularization and thus directed that the said benefits be granted. The decision in 4 2025:HHC:28018 Ram Singh’s case (supra) came up before us in LPA No.60 of 2025, whereby we dismissed the LPA by holding as under:- “3. The argument raised before learned Single Judge, which has now also been repeated, is that the employee, as such, had been appointed on “bill basis” and not on “daily wage basis” and, therefore, the policy dated 22.04.2020 was not applicable in this case. 4. Learned Single Judge found that there was no intelligible differentia between a “daily wage worker” and “bill basis worker”, as such, and the benefit could not be denied in accordance with law on the basis of nomenclature and therefore, directed consideration, as noticed above, if the employee fulfilled the criteria of the regularization made in Annexure P-8. 5. It is not the case of the State that the policy of regularization is not applicable in this case and the only distinction sought to be made out is that the employment is on “bill basis” and therefore, the employee is not a daily wager who would be covered under the policy in question. The nomenclature as such, which has been given apparently by the State is on account of fertile imagination of the Department. Nothing was placed on record before the learned Single Judge to show that the nomenclature as such, which had been given of “bill basis” and that raising of a bill for a specific work as such, which might keep the employer out of the policy. The only document which was appended with the written statement as such, was a letter from the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest to the Department that certain employees as such had worked on “bill basis” and thus were not covered under the policy of regularization in view of the services provided. The written statement is silent about the nature of work which was done and whether it was for a specific purpose, which would have consumed the whole day or not and for which a bill might have been raised. Thus, the nomenclature which has been given by the Department, would not as such absolve it from the applicability of policy of the State to deny the benefit of regularization. 5 2025:HHC:28018 6. The learned Single Judge had noticed that the employment is from the year 2015 which was the categorical case in the writ petition and that the petitioner had completed 240 days in each calendar w.e.f. 01.01.2015 and appended the necessary man- days chart, regularization policy and a representation given on 01.12.2023. It would go on to show that communication dated 21.02.2021 regarding the appellant along with ten other daily wage workers for regularization was sent to the Chief Conservator of Forest, as per the regularization policy, but no action had been taken. 7. In such circumstances, the writ petition has been filed and there is no denial of the fact that the matter had been forwarded by the Chief Conservator of Forest and it is only a general denial that the claim is not tenable in view of the nomenclature. No material worth any substance was placed before the learned Single Judge, as noticed above, regarding the particular type of work for which the petitioner was appointed by the Department and whether the said work was not similar to that of the daily wager. 8. In such circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the distinction which is sought to be carved out by the State is without any justification or in the absence of any documentation placed on record. Therefore, the learned Single Judge has rightly directed consideration as per the policy of the State itself being recognized by the State to give the benefit of regularization being a welfare State which now cannot wriggle out from its own policy by resorting to this frivolous litigation. 9. Accordingly, we find no merit in the present appeal, the same is dismissed alongwith pending application(s), if any.” 7. Keeping in view the above, we are of the considered opinion that there is no plausible reason, as such, to take a different view than what we have already taken. 6 2025:HHC:28018 8. Resultantly, we do not find any merit in the present appeal and accordingly the same is dismissed. 9. At this stage, we are informed that the SLP(C) No.20695 of 2025 titled State of Himachal Pradesh and others vs. Ram Singh has also been dismissed on 08.08.2025 by the Apex Court. 10. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. ( G.S. Sandhawalia ) Chief Justice August 18 , 2025 ( Ranjan Sharma ) (ankit) Judge