IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.11267 of 2024 Date of Decision: 14.07.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Satish Kumar ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Ms. Seema K.Guleria, Advocate. For the respondent: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar & Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocate Generals with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for the following main reliefs: “(i) That the rejection order dated 09.01.2019 whereby the case of petitioner was rejected by respondents (Annexure P-4) may kindly be quashed and set aside by issuing a writ of certiorari. (ii) That the respondents may very kindly be directed to regularize the services of the petitioner w.e.f. 01.01.2001 by applying the ratio of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh in Rakesh Kumar's case as well as the judgment passed in CWPOA No. 6487 of 2020 with all consequential benefits of increments, pay, seniority, arrears etc. alongwith an interest @ 12% per annum in the interest of law and justice. (iii) That the respondents may kindly be directed to grant all consequential benefits treating the petitioner as regular Beldar w.e.f. 01.01.2001. 2. Though by way of filing reply, claim put-forth by the petitioner has been refuted by the respondents on the ground that he was rightly regularized after completion of 10 years of daily wage service with 240 days in each calendar year pursuant to judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in Mool Raj Upadhayay Vs. State of H.P., 1994 Supp (2) SCC 316, however, learned counsel for the petitioner, while making this Court peruse judgment dated 03.05.2024 passed by Division Bench in CWPOA No. 6487 of 2020 titled as Keshav and Ors. Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, states that petitioner would be content and satisfied in case directions are issued to the respondents to consider and decide the case of the petitioner in light of aforesaid judgment, wherein identical issue as raised in the instant proceedings, already stands adjudicated. 3. Having carefully perused grievance of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Ms. Seema K.Guleria, learned counsel representing the petitioner, vis-a-vis judgment sought to be relied upon, this Court finds that Division Bench of this Court, after having considered the ground raised by the respondents that since petitioner was regularized after ten years daily wage service in terms of Mool Raj Upadhayaya’s case, his prayer for regularization after completion of 8 years cannot be considered, has held that so called judgment in Mool Raj Upadhayaya’s case, is 2 clearly a misnomer as the Hon’ble Supreme did not pass any independent judgment, but rather approved policy that had been framed and issued by the State Government with regard to regularization of the services of the daily waged employees with certain modifications. In afore judgment, Division Bench held that it is equally true that in continuation of earlier policy that was subject matter before the Hon’ble Apex Court in Mool Raj Upadhayaya’s case which prescribed for 10 years mandatory service as daily wager prior to regularization, the State Government itself issued orders dated 03.04.2000 and 06.05.2000, thereby reducing period of daily wage service from 10 years continuous service to 8 years continuous service and as such, claim of the petitioner, who is claiming regularization after his having completed 8 years of continuous service, deserves to be considered. 4. Consequently, in view of the above, this Court, without going into the merits of the case, deems it fit to dispose of the present petition with a direction to the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner afresh in light of aforesaid judgment passed by Division Bench of this Court as well as latest judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.1595 of 2025, titled State of Himachal Pradesh and others Vs. Surajmani and others, wherein it has been categorically held that daily wager, after his/her having completed 8 3 years of daily wage service with 240 days’ in each calendar year, shall be entitled to work charge status/regularization. Needless to say, in case, petitioner is found to be similarly situate to the petitioner(s) in the aforesaid judgments, he would be extended similar benefits. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. July 14, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (sunil) Judge 4