IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMP(M) No.121 of 2025 in LPA No.60 of 2025. Date of Decision:- 27.02.2025 State of Himachal Pradesh ....Applicants/Appellants Versus Ram Singh ....Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellants : Mr. Arsh Rattan, Deputy Advocate General. For the Respondent : None. G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice (oral). CMP(M) No.121 of 2025 in LPA No.60 of 2025. Keeping in view the averments made in the application duly supported by the affidavit of applicants/appellants, we are of the opinion that sufficient cause has been made out to condone the delay. Therefore, the delay of 94 days’ in filing the appeal is condoned. The application stands disposed of. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 LPA No.60 of 2025. 2. The challenge in the present Letters Patent Appeal is to the order passed in Civi Writ Petition No.789 of 2024 titled as Ram Singh Vs. State of H.P. & Others, decided on 04.07.2024, whereby the direction was issued to confer work charge status/regularization upon the petitioner in terms of the regularization policy of the State Governnment dated 22.04.2020 within a period of six weeks from the date of the judgment with all consequential benefits. However, actual monetary benefits were restricted for three years prior to the date of the filing of the writ petition. 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, 3 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 employement 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 4 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. 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 5 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. (G.S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice (Ranjan Sharma) Judge 27h February, 2025 (munish thakur)