2025:HHC:45500 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Civil Writ Petition No.4653 of 2025 Date of Decision: 23.12.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Surinder ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Others …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? ________________________________________________________________________ For the Petitioner: Mr. Abhinav Ghabroo, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for State. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for following main reliefs: “(i). issue the writ of certiorari, quashing the office order dated 08.07.2024 , Annexure P-11, passed by the Respondent No. 2, rejecting the representation of the petitioner for granting regularization of the services with effect from 08.10.2021 upon completion of three (3) years of contract service; (ii). issue writ of mandamus /order/ direction in nature thereof, directing the Respondents to regularize the services of the Petitioner with effect from 08.10.2021, i.e., upon completion of three (3) years of services in contract period as per notification dated 30.03.2021, Annexure P-4, along with all consequential benefits including the benefit in accordance with the Himachal Pradesh Civil Services (Revised pay) Rules, 2022 (iii). in alternative to the prayer contained in clause (i) supra, issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondents to 2025:HHC:45500 -2- regularize the services of the Petitioner, w.e.f. 28.12.2021, upon completion of two (2) years of services in contract period as per notification dated 28.12.2021, Annexure P-7, along with all consequential benefits including the benefit in accordance with the Himachal Pradesh Civil Services (Revised pay) Rules, 2022; (iv). issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondents to extend the benefits of the Notifications dated 03.01.2022 and 06.09.2022 and grant Higher Stage of Pay in the Concerned Level of Pay Matrix i.e. Rs. 30500/- as per Notification dated 06.09.2022 in favour of the Petitioner and fix the pay from due date, i.e., after completion two (2) years of regular service with all consequential benefits including the arrears along with interest 9%;” 2. Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the pleadings adduced on record by the respective parties are that on 22.09.2018, petitioner was appointed as Clerk in the Department of Cooperation on contract basis (Annexure P-1). Petitioner herein availed duly approved leave w.e.f. 16.11.2018 to 14.03.2019 in three different spells. Though after his having completed three years of service on contract basis, petitioner had become eligible for regularisation in terms of Policy dated 30.03.2021 (Annexure P-4), wherein it came to be provided that contractual employee, who has served the department concerned on contract basis for three years, shall be regularised, however, at that time, petitioner was denied afore benefit on the ground that there was a break in service w.e.f. 16.11.2018 to 14.03.2019. 2025:HHC:45500 -3- 3. Vide order dated 08.10.2021, except the petitioner, all his batch-mates were regularised, after their having completed three years of service on contract basis. Aforesaid Policy dated 30.03.2021 (Annexure P-4), further came to be modified vide Notification dated 28.12.2021 (Annexure P-7) whereby Government itself decided to reduce the period of contract appointees for their regularisation from existing three years to two years. It also specifically came to be notified in the aforesaid Notification that service of contractual appointees, who have completed two years of continuous service as on 30.09.2021, shall be regularised. Though petitioner herein had completed two years of contract service w.e.f. 15.03.2019 to 15.03.2021, but yet he was denied benefit of aforesaid Policy and as such, petitioner approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein for reliefs, as have been reproduced hereinabove. 4. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. Abhinav Ghabroo, learned counsel representing the petitioner is that though there is no occasion for respondents to not take into consideration the period starting from 16.11.2018 to 14.03.2019 while calculating three years period for the purpose of regularisation in terms of Policy dated 30.03.2021 (Annexure P-4), because during afore period, petitioner had availed leave without pay with the prior sanction of the 2025:HHC:45500 -4- department concerned, as is evident from the communications dated 20.11.2018, 22.02.2019 and 18.03.2019 (Annexure P-5/I to P-5/III), but even if it is presumed that period starting from 16.11.2018 to 14.03.2019, during which petitioner remained on leave, is considered to be break in service, petitioner ought to have been regularised w.e.f. 16.03.2021 in terms of Policy dated 28.12.2021 (Annexure P-7), wherein it specifically came to be provided that service of contractual appointees who have completed two years of continuous service as on 30.09.2021 shall be regularised. 5. To the contrary, Mr. Ravi Chauhan, learned Deputy Advocate General, while refuting the claim of the petitioner vehemently argued that since there is no provision in the contract policy to grant leave without pay, no illegality can be said to have been committed by the respondents while declaring the period starting from 16.11.2018 to 14.03.2019 as break in service. He submitted that since after exclusion of aforesaid period, petitioner had not completed three years of service on contract basis, he was rightly not granted regularisation in terms of Policy dated 30.03.2021 (Annexure P-4). He further submitted that three-member departmental screening committee, constituted under the chairmanship of Additional Registrar (Administration), Cooperative Societies H.P., considered the candidature of the petitioner for such regularisation on 06.10.2021 2025:HHC:45500 -5- along with four other contractual appointees, however, in view of the fact that there was no provision in the Recruitment & Promotion Rules for the post of Clerk, which enabled regularisation of the leave without pay availed by the petitioner, the services of the petitioner could not be regularised along with other counterparts from the same batch. 6. 6. Having heard learned counsel representing the parties and perused material available on record, though this Court is persuaded to agree with learned Deputy Advocate General that there is no provision in the contract policy to grant leave without pay, but once it is not in dispute that respondents themselves permitted the petitioner to avail leave w.e.f. 16.11.2018 to 14.03.2019 without pay and thereafter he was not only permitted to rejoin, but his contract was renewed for further two years, afore plea otherwise sought to be raised by the respondents deserves rejection. 7. Leaving everything aside, this Court finds that w.e.f. 15.03.2019, petitioner served the respondent-department on contract basis, without there being any break till his regularisation on 17.06.2022, meaning thereby, he had completed two years of service on contract basis w.e.f. 15.03.2019 to 15.03.2021. If it is so, he ought to have been granted benefit of Policy of regularisation framed by the Government of Himachal Pradesh vide Notification dated 28.12.2021 2025:HHC:45500 -6- (Annexure P-7). At this stage, it would be apt to take note of relevant extract of the Notification dated 28.12.2021, which reads as under: “In continuation of this Department's letter of even number dated 30th March 2021, I am directed to say that the Government has decided to reduce the period of contract appointees for their regularization from existing 03 (three) years to 02 (two years). The services of contractual appointees who have completed two (2) years of continuous service as on 30-09-2021 shall be regularized. The regularization may be made after observing all codal formalities, subject to the following terms and conditions:- i. The contractual appointees will be eligible for regularization against available vacancies. ii. The regularization will be strictly on the basis of seniority subject to the condition that eligibility criteria etc. prescribed in the Recruitment and Promotion Rules for the post have been observed at the time of their initial recruitment on contract. iii. The candidate should be medically fit for the post against which he/she is being considered for regularization. Obtaining the Medical fitness certificate of the candidate shall be ensured in accordance with the provisions contained in FR 10 and SR 4 (1), 4 (2) and 4 (3). iv. The regularization shall be subject to verification of character and antecedents of the candidate being considered for regularization as provided in the H.P. Financial Rules. v. For the determination of date of birth of the candidate concerned, the criteria as laid down in Rule 172 of the Himachal Pradesh Financial Rules, 2009 shall be observed. vi. A Screening Committee shall be constituted in the Department concerned for regularization. vii. The contractual appointees who are to be regularized shall be appointed at the minimum of the time scale of the post. viii. The contractual appointee who are regularized shall be liable to be posted anywhere in the State. ix. The regularization will be with prospective effect i.e. from the date of issue of regularization orders.” 2025:HHC:45500 -7- 8. Careful perusal of aforesaid Notification clearly reveals that service of contractual appointees who have completed two years of continuous service as on 30.09.2021 shall be regularised. If it is so, petitioner is right in claiming that he ought to have been regularised w.e.f. 16.03.2021, instead of 17.06.2022. 9. Though Mr. Ravi Chauhan, learned Deputy Advocate General, vehemently argued that Policy dated 28.12.2021 (Annexure P-7) is not applicable to the petitioner, rather his case was required to be considered in terms of Policy dated 30.03.2021 (Annexure P-4), but this Court is not impressed with the afore submission of learned Deputy Advocate General for the reason that bare reading of aforesaid Policy clearly reveals that same was issued in continuation of earlier Policy dated 30.03.2021 and therein, Government itself decided to reduce the period of contract appointees for their regularisation from existing three years to two years and that services of contractual appointees who have completed two years of continuous service as on 30.09.2021 were entitled to be regularised in terms of aforesaid Policy dated 28.12.2021 (Annexure P-7). Since in the case at hand, petitioner who admittedly worked on contract basis w.e.f. 15.03.2019 till his regularisation on 17.06.2022 and he had completed two years of 2025:HHC:45500 -8- service on contract basis on 15.03.2021, he ought to have been granted benefit of aforesaid Policy dated 28.12.2021. 10. At this stage, learned Deputy Advocate General further argued that no objection was ever raised by the petitioner at the time of his regularisation w.e.f. 17.06.2022 and as such, present petition otherwise deserves to be dismissed on the ground of acquiescence as well as delay and laches, however, this Court is not persuaded to accept the aforesaid submission of learned Deputy Advocate General for the reason that in June 2022, petitioner had no option but to accept the regularisation order, because despite his being topper in the batch, he was denied regularisation on frivolous grounds. On one hand, respondents themselves sanctioned the leave of the petitioner without pay, but on the other hand, while considering his case for regularisation, refused to condone the break in service on the ground that he was not entitled to be granted leave without pay during subsistence of contract service. This Court finds from the record that before coming to this Court, petitioner filed representations dated 17.03.2022, 09.06.2022, 01.05.2024 and 11.12.2024 (Annexures P-8 Colly, P-10 and P-13), but since nothing was heard from the respondents’ side, he had no option but to approach this Court in the instant proceedings. 2025:HHC:45500 -9- 11. Consequently, in view of the above, this Court finds merit in the present petition and accordingly the same is allowed. Impugned order dated 08.07.2024 (Annexure P-11), thereby rejecting the representation of the petitioner for granting regularisation of the services w.e.f. 08.10.2021, upon completion of three years of service on contract basis, is quashed and set aside and respondents are directed to regularise the service of the petitioner w.e.f. 16.03.2021, in terms of Policy dated 28.12.2021 (Annexure P-7), along with all consequential benefits, including the benefit of Himachal Pradesh Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2022. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. December 23, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (Rajeev Raturi) Judge