Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 3542 (HP)

Anuradha Thakur v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2025-09-10

Satyen Vaidya

body2025
JUDGMENT : Satyen Vaidya, J. The instant petition has been filed for the following substantive reliefs: “i) That the impugned order dated 19.12.2017 (Annexure A-13) may be quashed and set aside and the respondents may be further directed to regularize the services of the applicant w.e.f. 01.04.2017 with all consequential benefits.” 2. The petitioner is seeking regularization of her services in terms of Government notification dated 04.05.2017, Annexure A-8, on completion of three years of contract services. Earlier also the petitioner had approached the erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal by way of Original Application No. 2907 of 2017, which was disposed of vide order dated 12.07.2017 with direction to the respondents to consider the case of petitioner for regularization in light of policy/instruction dated 04.05.2017. In compliance, the consideration order was passed by the Special Secretary (Health) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh on 19.12.2017, Annexure A-13, whereby the prayer of the petitioner for regularization has been rejected. Hence this petition. 3. The petitioner was appointed as Medical Officer vide notification dated 14.09.2012, Annexure A-4, on contract basis at fixed remuneration of Rs.26,250/- lumpsum per month plus incentive as admissible vide letter dated 21.07.2012 to be made from National Rural Health Mission (NRHM). The petitioner was posted in NRHM, at Shimla. 4. The aforesaid appointment of the petitioner was result of her participation in an interview conducted by the Department of Health & Family Welfare, Government of Himachal Pradesh. 5. An agreement was executed between the petitioner and the Government of Himachal Pradesh on 11.10.2012 evidencing the contract appointment of petitioner for a period of one year. On 20.09.2012, the post of petitioner was designated as OSD (Training). The petitioner was asked to manage day-to-day training programme in the NRHM with immediate effect. Thereafter, the petitioner was transferred to District Kangra at Dharamshala on 16.04.2013 and was posted in the office of the Chief Medical Officer, Kangra as Programme Officer under NRHM. Later, vide notification/office order dated 14.06.2013, a clarification was issued whereby the designation of the petitioner was changed as NRHM Consultant and her salaries and allowances were held to be provisioned from NRHM funds @ Rs.40,000/- per month plus incentive and allowances as admissible. 6. Later, vide notification/office order dated 14.06.2013, a clarification was issued whereby the designation of the petitioner was changed as NRHM Consultant and her salaries and allowances were held to be provisioned from NRHM funds @ Rs.40,000/- per month plus incentive and allowances as admissible. 6. The petitioner is claiming the regularization of her services on the premise that she was appointed on the basis of a Government contract and in terms of the Government notification dated 04.05.2017, a decision had been taken to regularize the services of those contractual appointees, who had completed three years continuous service as on 31.03.2017. It is the allegation of the petitioner that the similarly situated persons have been regularized in terms of the aforesaid notification and only the petitioner has been discriminated. 7. The petitioner is Bachelor in Dental Surgery. She also has Master’s degree in Public Health from the Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh. 8. Another allegation of the petitioner is that since she is the first Public Health Specialist to be appointed on Government contract in the Department of Health and Family Welfare, the Himachal Pradesh Medical Officers Association is pressurizing the respondents to deny the benefit of regularization to the petitioner. As per the petitioner, she has been made as scapegoat in the aforesaid circumstances. 9. The respondents in their reply have admitted that the petitioner was initially appointed as Medical Officer on contract basis specially for a period of one year at fixed remuneration plus incentive to be met out from NRHM. The transfer of the petitioner to the office of Chief Medical Officer, Kangra is stated to be at her own request. Reference has been made to the notification dated 14.06.2013, whereby the designation of the petitioner was changed as NRHM Consultant. It is stated that the petitioner had accepted the terms and conditions of her service notified vide notification dated 14.06.2013 and had continued to work on same conditions without any reservation or objection. 10. It is further the case of the respondents that right from the beginning petitioner had neither been appointed to work on contract basis in the Government Department nor had she been paid any salary from the State budget to the Government. On such premise, the petitioner is stated to be not entitled for regularization in terms of the policy dated 04.05.2017. On such premise, the petitioner is stated to be not entitled for regularization in terms of the policy dated 04.05.2017. Another ground raised by the respondents is that the petitioner was not appointed through the recruiting agency as per the Recruitment and Promotion Rules and the laid procedure, her appointment could not be termed as contract appointment for regularization as per the policy/ instructions of the State Government circulated vide letter dated 04.05.2017. 11. As regards the benefit of regularization granted to the similarly situated persons, the respondents have tried to distinguish the case of the petitioner on the ground that those other Medical Officers were appointed on contract basis by the State Government, whereas the petitioner right from the beginning had neither been appointed to work on contract basis in the Government Department nor she had ever been paid any salary from the State budget of the Government. 12. The respondents have admitted to have received a representation from Association of Medical Officers inter alia objecting to the regularisation of the services of the petitioner. 13. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the records of the case carefully. 14. The first question that arises for determination is whether the appointment of petitioner was under the contract with the State Government? 15. The specific plea of the petitioner in the petition is that she was appointed as Medical Officer on contract basis vide notification dated 14.09.2012 in pursuance to the selection process held by the department of Health and Family Welfare of the State Government. Reliance has been placed on document, Annexure A-3, accompanied by its typed copy as Annexure A-3/T, which reveals that the Director Health Services, Himachal Pradesh had published advertisement, inviting the candidate having Graduate Medical Degree/P.G. Diploma to appear for interview on the dates detailed in the advertisement with original testimonials. The advertisement clearly suggested that it was issued by the Department of Health & Family Welfare, Himachal Pradesh revealing its interest to appoint 50 Specialist Post Graduate Medical Officers. This fact has not been denied or refuted by the respondents. Thus, it is established that the appointment of petitioner vide Annexure A-4 dated 14.09.2012 was in pursuance to the advertisement, Annexure A-3 (Annexure A-3/T), issued by the Department of Health & Family Welfare, Himachal Pradesh. 16. This fact has not been denied or refuted by the respondents. Thus, it is established that the appointment of petitioner vide Annexure A-4 dated 14.09.2012 was in pursuance to the advertisement, Annexure A-3 (Annexure A-3/T), issued by the Department of Health & Family Welfare, Himachal Pradesh. 16. The notification dated 14.09.2012 vide which the petitioner was appointed as Medical Officer reads as under: “The Governor, Himachal Pradesh is pleased to offer appointment to the following doctor after counseling 2012 purely on contract basis for a period of one year at a fixed remuneration of Rs.26250/- lump sum P.M. plus incentive as admissible vide letter No. Health-A-B(8)/1/2007 dated 21st July, 2012, which will be met from NRHM, in the Health Institutions mentioned against her name on the terms and conditions contained in the enclosed agreement proforma (which can be down loaded from the official website of Health Deptt. i.e. hphealth.nic.in) in the public interest:- Sr. No. Employee Code & Name Father Name DOB Designation Place of Posting 1. 24589-ANURADHA S/o D/o JAGDISH CHAND VPO NAROLA TEHSIL SARKAGHAT, District Mandi (Himachal Pradesh) 19/01/1982 Medical Officer Shimla, National Rural Health Mission, H.P. SHIMLA The above mentioned officer(s) is/are directed to join at the place(s) of posting immediately and send joining report to this Deptt. through proper channel. By Order Secretary (Health) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh.” 17. The contract/agreement dated 11.10.2012 was thereafter executed between the Government of Himachal Pradesh and the petitioner as is clearly evident from the copy of agreement placed on record as Annexure A-5. 18. Thus, the stand of respondents that the initial appointment of the petitioner was not under the Government contract is not justified. The facts reveal otherwise. 19. Next, it is to be seen whether the appointment of petitioner was under NRHM from the beginning? 20. The respondents have taken a stand that the appointment of the petitioner was never under the State Government and she was also not paid any amount from the State budget to the Government. However, as held above, the initial appointment of the petitioner was under a government contract. The appointment order nowhere shows that the services of petitioner were engaged for NRHM. However, as held above, the initial appointment of the petitioner was under a government contract. The appointment order nowhere shows that the services of petitioner were engaged for NRHM. The contents of appointment letter, as reproduced above, clearly demonstrate that the appointment of petitioner was made by the Governor, Himachal Pradesh on contract basis for a period of one year at fixed remuneration of Rs.26,250/- lump sum per month. It was mentioned that the petitioner would be entitled to incentive as per letter dated 21.07.2012 which will be made from NRHM. Even otherwise, the terms of the agreement dated 11.10.2012 executed between the petitioner and the Government of Himachal Pradesh does not reveal the appointment of petitioner to be under NRHM specifically. 21. Merely because the petitioner was posted as OSD (Training) under the orders of Mission Director, NRHM subsequent to her appointment does not establish that her appointment was under the NRHM. Undeniably, the obligations under NRHM are also fulfilled by the functionaries of State Health and family Welfare Department and there is no separate or special machinery for said purpose. 22. The respondents have further placed reliance on the notification/office order dated 14.06.2013 according to which the designation of the petitioner was notified as NRHM consultant and further it was notified that her salaries and allowances shall be payable from NRHM funds. This document was issued during the continuance of initial contract of petitioner dated 11.10.2012, which admittedly was valid till 17.09.2013. The notification/office order dated 14.06.2013 reads as under: “In continuation in this department notification of even no. dated 14.09.2022 and notification no. dated 16.04.2013 the following clarification are issued: i. The name of the said appointee shall be read as Dr. Anuradha Bhalgaria (BDS. MPH). ii. The designation of the said appointee shall be read as NRHM consultant. iii. Her salaries and allowances shall be payable from NRHM funds @ Rs.40000/- per month plus incentive and allowances as admissible. iv. Necessary changes shall be made in her contract as well as those of other NRHM consultants accordingly.” 23. Clause (iv) of the aforesaid document stipulated that necessary changes were to be made in the contract of the petitioner. Admittedly, it is not the pleaded case of the respondents that the agreement dated 11.10.2012 was altered at any point of time. Necessary changes shall be made in her contract as well as those of other NRHM consultants accordingly.” 23. Clause (iv) of the aforesaid document stipulated that necessary changes were to be made in the contract of the petitioner. Admittedly, it is not the pleaded case of the respondents that the agreement dated 11.10.2012 was altered at any point of time. No material has been placed on record to show that any amendment was made in the agreement dated 11.10.2012. 24. Even otherwise, the notification/office order dated 14.06.2013 has been assailed by the petitioner on the ground being a unilateral document issued without prior concurrence of the petitioner. Simply because the petitioner had continued to serve even after issuance of this letter, cannot be taken to be an act of acquiescence on part of the petitioner. The subsequent conduct of petitioner does not show that she had surrendered or abandoned her rights. Viewed from another angle, the petitioner would not have any other option but to keep working or else she would have lost the job. 25. In the given circumstances as noticed above, it cannot be said that initial engagement of petitioner was under NRHM or she had later acquiesced in change of her service to be one under NRHM. 26. The petitioner has also alleged discrimination. It is the specific case of the petitioner that similarly situated incumbents have been regularized in terms of Government policy dated 04.05.2017 on completion of three years of contract services vide Annexure A-9 dated 23.05.2017. 27. In response to the aforesaid allegation, the stand of the respondents can be found in the contents of supplementary affidavit dated 13.08.2025, of Special Secretary (Health) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh. There is a clear admission that except the incumbents finding mention at serial Nos. 1 to 9 at pages 42 to 44 of Annexure A-9, all others were initially appointed through walk-in-interview against the vacant posts. Thus, those incumbents were similarly situated as petitioner insofar as their mode of initial recruitment was concerned. 28. Another distinction sought to be drawn by respondents is that the regularisation of incumbents vide Annexure A-9 was against vacant posts and there was no vacant post for the category of petitioner. Thus, those incumbents were similarly situated as petitioner insofar as their mode of initial recruitment was concerned. 28. Another distinction sought to be drawn by respondents is that the regularisation of incumbents vide Annexure A-9 was against vacant posts and there was no vacant post for the category of petitioner. To test this argument, it can be seen that the appointment of petitioner was in pursuance to the Government Advertisement Annexure A-3, whereby the Government had proposed to appoint 50 doctors. It was not made clear whether the appointment of such 50 doctors was against the vacant posts or not. It is not understandable in case there was no vacant post for the petitioner why she was appointed and why has she been continued in service till date, though on contract basis. The creation of posts and management of vacancies is the responsibility of the Government/employer. The bogie of non-existence of post cannot be used at the whims and fancies of the employer. In such circumstances, the denial of benefit of regularization to the petitioner is clearly discriminatory. 29. The petitioner now has been working for the last more than 13 years. She still is living under the shadow of uncertainties as to her job and future. Despite having Bachelor’s degree in Dental Surgery and Post Graduate degree in Public Health, the petitioner is being paid paltry remuneration. It is not the case of the respondents that the requirement of petitioner is not there in public service. It is also not that the petitioner has been deputed against some sporadic or seasonal work. Rather, it stands established that the services of petitioner are being utilised for work which is perennial. 30. In Shripal and another Vs Nagar Nigam Ghaziabad 2025 SCC Online SC 221, Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as under: 16. It is manifest that the Appellant Workmen continuously rendered their services over several years, sometimes spanning more than a decade. Even if certain muster rolls were not produced in full, the Employer's failure to furnish such records-despite directions to do so-allows an adverse inference under well-established labour jurisprudence. Indian labour law strongly disfavors perpetual daily-wage or contractual engagements in circumstances where the work is permanent in nature. Morally and legally, workers who fulfil ongoing municipal requirements year after year cannot be dismissed summarily as dispensable, particularly in the absence of a genuine contractor agreement. Indian labour law strongly disfavors perpetual daily-wage or contractual engagements in circumstances where the work is permanent in nature. Morally and legally, workers who fulfil ongoing municipal requirements year after year cannot be dismissed summarily as dispensable, particularly in the absence of a genuine contractor agreement. At this juncture, it would be appropriate to recall the broader critique of indefinite “temporary” employment practices as done by a recent judgment of this court in Jaggo v. Union of India3 in the following paragraphs: 22. The pervasive misuse of temporary employment contracts, as exemplified in this case, reflects a broader systemic issue that adversely affects workers' rights and job security. In the private sector, the rise of the gig economy has led to an increase in precarious employment arrangements, often characterized by lack of benefits, job security, and fair treatment. Such practices have been criticized for exploiting workers and undermining labour standards. Government institutions, entrusted with upholding the principles of fairness and justice, bear an even greater responsibility to avoid such exploitative employment practices. When public sector entities engage in misuse of temporary contracts, it not only mirrors the detrimental trends observed in the gig economy but also sets a concerning precedent that can erode public trust in governmental operations. ……… 25. It is a disconcerting reality that temporary employees, particularly in government institutions, often face multifaceted forms of exploitation. While the foundational purpose of temporary contracts may have been to address short-term or seasonal needs, they have increasingly become a mechanism to evade long- term obligations owed to employees. These practices manifest in several ways: Misuse of “Temporary” Labels: Employees engaged for work that is essential, recurring, and integral to the functioning of an institution are often labelled as “temporary” or “contractual,” even when their roles mirror those of regular employees. Such misclassification deprives workers of the dignity, security, and benefits that regular employees are entitled to, despite performing identical tasks. Arbitrary Termination: Temporary employees are frequently dismissed without cause or notice, as seen in the present case. This practice undermines the principles of natural justice and subjects workers to a state of constant insecurity, regardless of the quality or duration of their service. Lack of Career Progression: Temporary employees often find themselves excluded from opportunities for skill development, promotions, or incremental pay raises. This practice undermines the principles of natural justice and subjects workers to a state of constant insecurity, regardless of the quality or duration of their service. Lack of Career Progression: Temporary employees often find themselves excluded from opportunities for skill development, promotions, or incremental pay raises. They remain stagnant in their roles, creating a systemic disparity between them and their regular counterparts, despite their contributions being equally significant. Using Outsourcing as a Shield: Institutions increasingly resort to outsourcing roles performed by temporary employees, effectively replacing one set of exploited workers with another. This practice not only perpetuates exploitation but also demonstrates a deliberate effort to bypass the obligation to offer regular employment. Denial of Basic Rights and Benefits: Temporary employees are often denied fundamental benefits such as pension, provident fund, health insurance, and paid leave, even when their tenure spans decades. This lack of social security subjects them and their families to undue hardship, especially in cases of illness, retirement, or unforeseen circumstances.” 31. Recently in Dharam Singh Vs State of U.P. 2025 SCC Online SC 1735, Hon’ble Supreme Court while dealing with the case of daily waged employees of U.P. Higher Education Service Commission, who had rendered services for more than ten years and taking cognizance of ad-hocism and ever-changing stances, of the authorities, in public employment, has observed as under: “When public institutions depend, day after day, on the same hands to perform permanent tasks, equity demands that those tasks are placed on sanctioned posts, and those workers are treated with fairness and dignity. The controversy before us is not about rewarding irregular employment. It is about whether years of ad hoc engagement, defended by shifting excuses and pleas of financial strain, can be used to deny the rights of those who have kept public institutions running. We resolve it by insisting that public employment should be organised with fairness, reasoned decision making, and respect for the dignity of work.” 32. Finally, Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dharam Singh (supra) has held as under: 17. Before concluding, we think it necessary to recall that the State (here referring to both the Union and the State governments) is not a mere market participant but a constitutional employer. It cannot balance budgets on the backs of those who perform the most basic and recurring public functions. Before concluding, we think it necessary to recall that the State (here referring to both the Union and the State governments) is not a mere market participant but a constitutional employer. It cannot balance budgets on the backs of those who perform the most basic and recurring public functions. Where work recurs day after day and year after year, the establishment must reflect that reality in its sanctioned strength and engagement practices. The long-term extraction of regular labour under temporary labels corrodes confidence in public administration and offends the promise of equal protection. Financial stringency certainly has a place in public policy, but it is not a talisman that overrides fairness, reason and the duty to organise work on lawful lines. 18. Moreover, it must necessarily be noted that “ad- hocism” thrives where administration is opaque. The State Departments must keep and produce accurate establishment registers, muster rolls and outsourcing arrangements, and they must explain, with evidence, why they prefer precarious engagement over sanctioned posts where the work is perennial. If “constraint” is invoked, the record should show what alternatives were considered, why similarly placed workers were treated differently, and how the chosen course aligns with Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Sensitivity to the human consequences of prolonged insecurity is not sentimentality. It is a constitutional discipline that should inform every decision affecting those who keep public offices running. 19. Having regard to the long, undisputed service of the appellants, the admitted perennial nature of their duties, and the material indicating vacancies and comparator regularisations, we issue the following directions: i. Regularization and creation of Supernumerary posts: All appellants shall stand regularized with effect from 24.04.2002, the date on which the High Court directed a fresh recommendation by the Commission and a fresh decision by the State on sanctioning posts for the appellants. For this purpose, the State and the successor establishment (U.P. Education Services Selection Commission) shall create supernumerary posts in the corresponding cadres, Class-III (Driver or equivalent) and Class-IV (Peon/Attendant/Guard or equivalent) without any caveats or preconditions. On regularization, each appellant shall be placed at not less than the minimum of the regular pay-scale for the post, with protection of last-drawn wages if higher and the appellants shall be entitled to the subsequent increments in the pay scale as per the pay grade. On regularization, each appellant shall be placed at not less than the minimum of the regular pay-scale for the post, with protection of last-drawn wages if higher and the appellants shall be entitled to the subsequent increments in the pay scale as per the pay grade. For seniority and promotion, service shall count from the date of regularization as given above. ii. Financial consequences and arrears: Each appellant shall be paid as arrears the full difference between (a) the pay and admissible allowances at the minimum of the regular pay-level for the post from time to time, and (b) the amounts actually paid, for the period from 24.04.2002 until the date of regularization/retirement/death, as the case may be. Amounts already paid under previous interim directions shall be so adjusted. The net arrears shall be released within three months and if in default, the unpaid amount shall carry compound interest at 6% per annum from the date of default until payment. iii. Retired appellants: Any appellant who has already retired shall be granted regularization with effect from 24.04.2002 until the date of superannuation for pay fixation, arrears under clause (ii), and recalculation of pension, gratuity and other terminal dues. The revised pension and terminal dues shall be paid within three months of this Judgment. iv. Deceased appellants: In the case of Appellant No. 5 and any other appellant who has died during pendency, his/her legal representatives on record shall be paid the arrears under clause (ii) up to the date of death, together with all terminal/retiral dues recalculated consistently with clause (i), within three months of this Judgment. v. Compliance affidavit: The Principal Secretary, Higher Education Department, Government of Uttar Pradesh, or the Secretary of the U.P. Education Services Selection Commission or the prevalent competent authority, shall file an affidavit of compliance before this Court within four months of this Judgment. 20. We have framed these directions comprehensively because, case after case, orders of this Court in such matters have been met with fresh technicalities, rolling “reconsiderations,” and administrative drift which further prolongs the insecurity for those who have already laboured for years on daily wages. Therefore, we have learned that Justice in such cases cannot rest on simpliciter directions, but it demands imposition of clear duties, fixed timelines, and verifiable compliance. Therefore, we have learned that Justice in such cases cannot rest on simpliciter directions, but it demands imposition of clear duties, fixed timelines, and verifiable compliance. As a constitutional employer, the State is held to a higher standard and therefore it must organise its perennial workers on a sanctioned footing, create a budget for lawful engagement, and implement judicial directions in letter and spirit. Delay to follow these obligations is not mere negligence but rather it is a conscious method of denial that erodes livelihoods and dignity for these workers. The operative scheme we have set here comprising of creation of supernumerary posts, full regularization, subsequent financial benefits, and a sworn affidavit of compliance, is therefore a pathway designed to convert rights into outcomes and to reaffirm that fairness in engagement and transparency in administration are not matters of grace, but obligations under Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. 33. The facts of the case at hand furnish another example of what has been underlined in Dharam Singh (supra). 34. In result, the petition is allowed. The order dated 19.12.2017, Annexure A-13, is quashed and set-aside. The respondents are directed to regularize the services of the petitioner in terms of the Government policy dated 04.05.2017, Annexure A-8, within a period of four weeks from the date of passing of this judgment. Since the petitioner has not been remiss or slow in seeking the remedy by approaching the Court, she is also held entitled to all consequential benefits. 35. The petition is accordingly disposed of in above terms, so also the pending application(s), if any.