( 2025:HHC:29899-DB ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP No.16070 of 2024 Date of Decision: 2nd September, 2025 ____________________________________________________ 1.CWP No. 16070 of 2024 Commissioner, CGST Commissionerate, Shimla ....Petitioner. Versus Virender Singh Verma and others …Respondents 2.CWP No. 7803 of 2025 Virender Singh Verma and others ....Petitioners. Versus Union of India and others …Respondents _____________________________________________________ Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge Whether approved for reporting? 1 CWP No.16070 of 2024 For the petitioner: Mr. Vijay Kumar Arora, Senior Advocate with Ms.Godawari, Ms.Aastha Kohli, Mr. Gaurav Kumar and Mr. Hitansh Raj, Advocates. CWP No.7803 of 2025 For the petitioner: Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sparsh Bhushan, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Bharat Bhushan, Senior Panel Counsel for respondents No.1 and 2. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 Mr. Vijay Kumar Arora, Senior Advocate with Ms.Godawari, Ms.Aastha Kohli, Mr. Gaurav Kumar and Mr. Hitansh Raj, Advocates for respondent No.3. G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice (Oral) The present petitions have been filed by the Department and by the employees, primarily against the principal order dated 17.05.2019 of the Central Administrative Tribunal in OA No.63/85/2018 titled Virender Singh Verma and others vs. Union of India and others, whereby the OA was disposed of in trms of the decision of Ernakulam Bench of the Tribunal in case of R. Anil Kumar vs. Union of India and Ors decided on 28.07.201, wherein it has been ordered that the employer would consider the case of the applicant as and when the scheme is framed by respondent-Department and if the applicant falls within the eligibility criteria to be framed in the scheme. 2. The Department as such had also filed a Review application bearing Number 063/13/2020 alongwith various miscellaneous applications for delay in filing the review application, in which they were not successful and the review application was not considered on account of delay as such and 3 was dismissed on 11.07.2024. 3. The challenge as such before the Tribunal was primarily to the order dated 30.06.2017 (Annexure A-9), whereby the claim for regularization of the six applicants was rejected on the ground that they were not regular employees, but casual laborers working with Central Excise Division, Shimla employed through a contractor. 4. Mr. Bhushan, learned Senior Advocate submits that the case as such of the applicants was that they were their employees from 1996 to 2004 except one who was employed in 2009 and they were continuing with the Department as such. In such circumstances, he has argued that the matter should have been decided on merits as to their entitlement as such for the claim for regularization. 5. Apparently, the direction as such, which was issued in R.Anil Kumar case (supra) that in case the scheme is framed, the case of the applicants would be considered, which would be clear from the operative part reproduced in para 7 of the said order, which reads as under:- “7. In view of the above submission by learned counsel for the applicant that the details relating to the applicant was sent in response to Annexure A-5 and A-6 to the higher authorities, it appears to this Tribunal that the O.A can be disposed of at this stage itself to direct the respondents to 4 consider the case of the applicant as and when a Scheme is framed by the respondent department and if the applicant falls within the eligibility criteria to be framed in that Scheme.” 6. It is in such circumstances, Mr. Bhushan has argued that the direction as such has put the employee in limbo and on the mercy of the Department as and when they frame a scheme. He submits that their cases should have been decided on merits as the Department had rejected their case with a specific order. It is thus submitted that similarly situated employees had been given the benefit in the Central Goods Service Tax, Commissionerate, Jammu and has relied upon the tabulated form Annexure P-1 as such. 7. Keeping in view the above, in our considered opinion since apparently both the sides are not satisfied with the order and it does not in effect decide the issue on merits. Apparently a period of six years have already been gone bye and the interest of the employees is being adversely affected as no such scheme has been formulated also. 8. Resultantly, we deem it fit to quash the order(s) dated 17.05.2019 and 11.07.2024 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench and remit the matter for fresh consideration on merits regarding the entitlements of the employees. It is open to 5 the applicants to supplement their pleadings and the Department will be afforded with adequate opportunity to rebut the same. The petitions are disposed of with the above observations. All pending applications stand disposed of accordingly. ( G.S. Sandhawalia ) Chief Justice 2nd September, 2025 ( Ranjan Sharma ) (priti) Judge