2025:HHC:45483-DB IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 1543 of 2022 Date of Decision: December 23, 2025 Sukh Ram and others …….Petitioners Versus State of H.P. and others ….Respondents __________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioners: Mr. Jai Dev Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anoop Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. Ravi Chauhan & Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advo- cates General __________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral): Briefly stated facts, as emerge from the record are that initially peti- tioners were engaged in the respondent-Department as workmen/beldar in the years 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994 and 1996 and in this capacity, they conti- nuously rendered his services in Herbal Garden Jogindernagar, District Mandi, H.P., but since their services came to be illegally retrenched by giv- ing them artificial breaks, they raised industrial dispute through their associ- ation vide Reference No. 61/2000. Since, conciliation, interse parties failed, appropriate Government while exercising power under Section 10(1) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 made following reference to the Labour Court- cum-Industrial Tribunal for adjudication: "Whether the demands raised by the General Secretary, Ayurvedic Plants Protection Collection Employees' Association, Herbal Garden, Joginderna- gar, District Mandi, H.P. with (1) The Director, Ayurvedic Himachal Pra- 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? -2- 2025:HHC:45483-DB desh, Shimla and (2) Incharge, Herbal Garden, Jogindernagar, District Mandi, H.P. vide their demand charter dated 1.8.98 are genuine and justi- fied. If yes, which of their demands should be accepted; and from which date?" 2. Learned Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal, Dharamshala having perused the material adduced on record by the respective parties decided the reference in favour of the petitioners who had raised dispute before In- dustrial Tribunal, vide award dated 11.08.2004 and passed following orders (Annexure P-2): “As a sequel to my findings on aforesaid issues No. 1, 2 and 3, the peti- tioner workmen are held to be entitled for seniority for the period of their ar- tificial breaks from the year, 1991 or from the date of their engagement with the respondents with consequential benefits which may accrue to them on the basis of continuous seniority. However, they are not entitled form back wages...” 3. After passing of the award, revised seniority list of the workmen were issued, but respondent department did not regularize the service of peti- tioners from due date. In this backdrop, petitioners’ union raised industrial disputes and sought regularisation of workmen who has completed 8 or 10 years of service vide Ref No 27/2006, which was allowed by Ld. Labour Court vide award dated 28.08.2010 and passed the following orders (An- nexure P-4): “The respondents are directed to regularize the services of the workman mentioned in the reference as per policy of the state i.e. after the comple- tion of 10 years of service alongwith all consequential benefits within the periods of three months of the publication of the award, failing which the respondents shall pay interest @ 9% from the date of award till the realiza- -3- 2025:HHC:45483-DB tion of the amount due. The petitioners shall also be entitled to the costs of Rs. 10,000/-.” 4. Respondent-Department being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid award dated 28.08.2010 passed by the Labour Court-cum- Industrial Tribunal, approached this court by way of CWP No. 299 of 2011, titled as Director Ayurveda, Himachal Pradesh and another vs. The General Secretary Ayurveda Plants Production/Collection Employees Association, Herbal Garden Jogindernagar, District Mandi, H.P., how- ever, facts remains that aforesaid writ petition was dismissed vide judgment dated 01.03.2012, (Annexure P-5) whereafter respondent-Department pre- ferred Review Petition No. 45/2013, but same was also dismissed vide judgment dated 23.7.2013. (Annexure P-6) 5. Against the aforesaid judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in main matter as well as Review Petition, respondent-Department preferred SLP(C) No.3750-3751/2016, before the Hon’ble Apex Court, but same was also dismissed on the ground of inordinate delay of 1353 days in filing the SLP. (Annexure P-8) 6. Vide impugned award dated 11.08.2004, which otherwise has at- tained finality, Tribunal below while directing the respondent not to give fic- tional breaks to the petitioners, specifically ordered that petitioners, who had approached Tribunal, shall be entitled to seniority for the period of their ar- tificial breaks from the year, 1991 or from the date of their engagement with the respondents with consequential benefits which may accrue to them on the basis of continuous seniority, however they shall not be entitled to any pecuniary benefits for the said period. -4- 2025:HHC:45483-DB 7. Now, precise case of the petitioners is that though after passing of aforesaid judgments, they stand regularized but not from the due date. As per the petitioners, since they were appointed in the years 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994 and 1996, their services should have been regularized when they completed eight years regular service. But, since in the case at hand services of the petitioners came to be regularized against the post of beldar vide Office order dated 21.04.2012, (Annexure P-7) petitioners were com- pelled to approach this Court by way of present writ petition, praying therein following reliefs: “i. That the respondents may be ordered to regularize the services of the petitioners, from the dates they completed the requisite period of daily wage services, as prescribed by the government for regularization, with all benefits incidental thereof”. 8. Having heard learned counsel representing the parties and perused the material available on record, this Court finds sufficient force in the sub- missions made by learned counsel representing the petitioners that once Tribunal below vide award dated 11.08.2004 held them entitled to seniority in service from the date of their initial appointments, they were entitled for regularization when they had completed eight years regular service. 9. For ease of reference, the following list indicates the dates on which the petitioners were initially engaged in service: S. No. Name Date of engage- ment 1. Sh Sukh Ram (Retired on 31.10.2016) 01.01.1991 2. Smt Nirmla Devi 01.01.1991 3. Sh Ramesh Chand 01.01.1992 4. Sh Raj Mal 01.01.1992 5. Sh Mahesh Kumar 01.01.1993 -5- 2025:HHC:45483-DB 6. Smt Munni Devi 1992 7. Smt Kamla Devi 1991 8. Sh Sher Singh 1991 9. Sh Mathu Ram 01.01.1994 10. Sh Satish Kumar 01.01.1996 10. Though, learned Additional Advocate General made an at- tempt to persuade this Court to agree with his contention that since during the aforesaid period petitioners never completed 240 days in a calendar year, they cannot be given benefit of service, if any, rendered by them dur- ing 1991/ 1992/ 1993/ 1994/ 1996 to 1999/ 2000/ 2001/ 2002/ 2004 respec- tively, but such plea made by him deserves outright rejection because of specific findings returned by learned Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal in its award, whereby Tribunal below while directing the respondent not to give fictional breaks, categorically held that the petitioners would be entitled to seniority in service from the date of their engagement. Aforesaid award rendered by Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal has attained finality up to the Hon’ble Apex Court and as such, it is not open at this stage for the res- pondent-Department to rake up the issue with regard to non-working of peti- tioner during 1991/ 1992/ 1993/ 1994/ 1996 to 1999/ 2000/ 2001/ 2002/ 2004, rather it is under obligation to regularize the services of the petitioners w.e.f. 1999/ 2000/ 2001/ 2002/ 2004 taking into consideration his date of initial engagement. 11. True, it is that one cannot claim regularization from the date of his initial engagement but definitely he/she is entitled for regularization from the date when he /she completed required period of 8/10 years, as provided under the various policies framed by the Government of H.P. for regulariza- -6- 2025:HHC:45483-DB tion of such employees. Since, there is no dispute that petitioners have al- ready completed eight years regular service, they cannot be denied such benefit on the ground that there is no provision for regularization from back date. Otherwise also, in the case at hand petitioners are not claiming regu- larization from the back date, rather they have claimed regularization from the date when they had completed eight years regular service from the date of his initial appointment which claim of theirs otherwise cannot be rejected, especially when it stands duly provided in the policy framed by the Govern- ment from time to time that workmen/daily wage employee shall be entitled for regularization after completion of 8/10 years regular service. Since, now in the case at hand it is not open for the respondent to claim that petitioners did not render eight years regular service between 1991/ 1992/ 1993/ 1994/ 1996 to 1999/ 2000/ 2001/ 2002/ 2004 because of specific findings returned by the Industrial Tribunal in its award dated 11.08.2004, petitioners are en- titled for regularization w.e.f. 01.01.1999/ 01.01.2000/ 01.012001/ 01.01.2002/ 01.01.2004. 12. Careful perusal of communication dated 26.09.2017 (Annexure P-9 colly) issued from the office of Incharge, Research Institute in ISM, Jogin- dernagar, District Mandi, H.P., reveals that case of the petitioner alongwith other similarly situate persons was duly recommended for regularization when he had completed eight years regular service. In the aforesaid com- munication Incharge, Research Institute ISM, Jogindernagar, District Mandi, H.P., has categorically held that on account of dismissal of SLP filed by the respondent-Department petitioner and other similarly situate persons are -7- 2025:HHC:45483-DB liable to be regularized from the date when they have completed eight years regular service, but it appears that aforesaid recommendation made by In- charge, Research Institute in ISM, Jogindernagar, District Mandi, H.P. has not been paid any heed by the authority concerned. 13. At this stage, it would be apt to take note of the fact that the issue at hand stands already decided by this Court in Baldev Raj v. The State of H.P. & others, CWPOA No. 6161 of 2020, decided on 24.9.2020, whereby petitioner-Baldev Raj, who was one of the petitioners herein, in earlier litiga- tion, has been held entitled to regularisation from the date of completion of eight years, as such, the petitioners herein are also entitled to benefit of re- gularization from the date of completion of eight years of service from the date of initial appointment. It is not in dispute that afore judgment has been implemented and as such petitioners herein being similarly situated are also required to be extended same benefits. 14. Consequently, in view of the above, this Court finds merit in the present petition and accordingly same is allowed. The order dated 21.04.2012, passed by the Director Ayurveda (Annexure P-7) is quashed and set-aside. The Director, Ayurveda is directed to regularize the services of the petitioners when they completed 8 years of regular service. They shall be entitled for back wages alongwith calculated arrears, if any, within a period of 2 months. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge December 23, 2025 (Vikrant)