IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.6155 of 2024 Date of Decision: 15.12.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Surinder Kumar ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sparsh Bhushan, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General with Mr. Ravi Chauhan & Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General, for the respondents- State. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) Petitioner herein, who at present is working as Mali at WRS Government Degree College, Dehri, Tehsil Fatehpur, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh, is aggrieved by order dated 04.09.2015 (Annexure P-6), whereby representation having been filed by him, in terms of judgment dated 24.03.2015 passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No.5419 of 2012, titled as Surinder Kumar Vs. State of H.P and others, praying therein for his regularization, came to be rejected. 2. Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the pleadings adduced on record by the respective parties are that in the month of February, 2003, petitioner participated in the selection process for the post of Mali at respondent No.3/College. Petitioner herein, being more meritorious, was given appointment to the post of Mali. Since his initial date of appointment, petitioner has been continuously discharging duties as Mali. While petitioner herein had been working as Mali, respondents-State formulated various policies, thereby providing for the regularization of the daily wage employees after completion of requisite number of years. Since despite petitioner’s having served the Government College for more than twelve years, his services were not regularized, he approached this Court by way of CWP No.5419 of 2012, titled as Surinder Kumar Vs. State of H.P and others, which came to be disposed of, vide judgment dated 24.03.2015, with a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner in light of the averments contained in the writ petition, read with Rules occupying the field. 3. Vide order dated 04.09.2015 (Annexure P-6), though respondents considered the case of the petitioner, but rejected the same on the ground that he was not appointed by the department, rather by the Parent Teacher Association and his salary was being paid from the funds collected by the PTA. Though after passing of afore 2 order, petitioner kept on making requests to the respondents to regularize his services, but in vain, as such, he approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein for the following main reliefs:- “a. That an appropriate writ, order or directions may kindly be issued and the respondents may kindly be directed to regularize the services of the petitioner on completion of 08 years of service as per Policy of the State Government by granting all the consequential benefits of pay, arrears and seniority etc. etc. b. That an appropriate writ, order or directions may kindly be issued and the impugned order Annexure P-6 dated 4th September, 2015 may kindly be quashed and set aside as the reasoning given is not tenable in the eyes of law with further directions to regularize the services of the petitioner on completion of 08 years of service, with all the consequential benefits of pay, arrears and seniority etc. etc.” 4. Admittedly, in the case at hand, petitioner was initially appointed as Mali at WRS Government Degree College, Dehri, Tehsil Fatehpur, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh, pursuant to appointment order passed by the Principal of the College. It is also not in dispute that since the first day of his initial appointment i.e. 28.02.2003, petitioner has been working continuously. It is also not in dispute that after 2003, respondents-State formulated various Policies of Regularization for daily wage employees, whereby daily wage employee, after his/her having served for eight years with 240 days in each calender year, is entitled to regularization. Though petitioner, on account of his served in the Government Institution, is entitled to 3 regularization in terms of Policy formulated by the Government of Himachal Pradesh, but his rightful claim is being defeated on the ground that he was not paid daily wages by the respondents, rather his honorarium was being paid from the funds collected by the PTA. 5. There is nothing in the reply filed by the respondents- department to suggests that post of Mali, which at present is occupied by the petitioner, is not required in the college premises, rather as per own reply filed by the respondents, petitioner has been performing gardening work at the respondent/College. Besides above, careful perusal of certificate issued by the Principal of the College concerned (Annexure P-3) clearly reveals that petitioner, besides his serving as Mali, also renders services as a Peon, which fact is not disputed by the respondents in their reply. It has been averred in the reply that though the initial appointment of the petitioner at the respondent/College was without permission, but there is no explanation on record that in case his initial appointment was not in accordance with law, why he was allowed to continue by the authorities of the college concerned and why they were not advised to dispense with the services of the petitioner. On the one hand, respondents, as per their requirements, have been extracting work from the petitioner and on the other hand, while considering his prayer for regularization, they have attempted to raise frivolous grounds, which are otherwise not available. 4 6. True it is that as per reply filed by the respondents, honorarium/salary is being paid to the petitioner from the funds raised by the PTA, but that cannot be a ground to deny the claim of the petitioner for regularization, especially when it is not in dispute that for more than 20 years, he has been working in Government Institution under the supervision and control of Principal of the College concerned. Normally, it is the duty of the State to provide regular staff in the colleges/schools, but since respondents-State failed to discharge its duties, Parent Teacher Association came to be formed that too under the policy framed by the Government of Himachal Pradesh, which subsequently extended support to the administration of the school/college for its smooth functioning. Number of teaching/non-teaching staff working on PTA basis have already been regularized, in terms of Policy of Regularization framed by the Government of Himachal Pradesh, as such, no discrimination can be meted out to a person like petitioner, who has given prime of his life to the institution. 7. Petitioner herein, who is 12th pass, otherwise cannot be said to be ineligible, in terms of Recruitment & Promotion Rules for the post of Mali. Respondents-State, being a welfare State, cannot be permitted to exploit its employees, whether part time or regular, rather being model employer, it is under obligation to take care of the basic 5 needs of its employees. Denial of regularization to the petitioner on the ground that his salary is being paid out of PTA funds is not sustainable in the eye of law. Since appointment to the post in question was made with the prior consent of the Principal of the college concerned, who is otherwise Secretary of the Parent Teacher Association, rightful claim of the petitioner for regularization cannot be permitted to be defeated on the ground that his payment/ honorarium is being paid by PTA of the college concerned. At the cost of repetition, it is observed that it is the primary duty of the Government to provide staff in schools/ colleges, but since respondents-State failed to discharge this duty and it subsequently decided to engage teaching and non-teaching staff on PTA basis, it is estopped from claiming that initial appointment of the petitioner against the post in question is not in terms Recruitment & Promotion Rules. Since petitioner has performed the duties of Chowkidar/Peon/Mali in the College concerned, which is admittedly a Government College, the source of his wages cannot be a ground to deny his entitlement to regularization, rather main factor for considering his prayer for regularization is the continuous service rendered by him in the College concerned for more than 20 years. In similar facts and circumstances, Coordinate Bench of this Court in CWPOA No.7629 of 2020, titled as Saini Ram Vs. The State of Himachal Pradesh and others and 6 CWPOA No.7631 of 2020, titled as Nasib Singh alias Chuhru Ram Vs. The State of Himachal Pradesh and others, while dealing with the cases of cook/head cook or Chowkidar, who were being paid honorarium from the funds collected by the students, directed the respondents-State to regularize their services. In afore cases, Coordinate Bench of this Court also rejected the plea raised on behalf of the petitioner that salaries in that cases were being paid out of hostel funds collected from the students. Relevant para of judgment passed in Saini Ram (supra) is extracted hereinbelow:- “6. It has not been disputed before this Court that the petitioner is serving as Cook in the hostel of the College concerned since 2007. It also stands admitted by the State that when the hostel inmates are not there, the petitioner perform the duties of a Chowkidar. At the time of the filing of the writ petition, the petitioner was 48 years old. As the initial engagement of the petitioner was in the year 2007, therefore, in terms of the policy of regularization mooted by the State and upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Mool Raj Upadhaya versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others, 1994 Supp (2) SCC 316, he was entitled for regularization after post completion of 10 years of service. The denial of this regularization to the petitioner on the ground that his wages are being paid from the funds being generated by way of collection from hostel inmates is not sustainable in the law. Annexure A-1, appended with the petition demonstrates that the petitioner was indeed appointed as Cook-cum-Chowkidar, in the month of November, 2007, by the Principal Government Post Graduate College, Dharamshala, District Kangra, H.P. This office order also demonstrates that this appointment was on the basis of the applications, which were so received by the College from the aspiring candidates. Besides this, the fact of the matter is that after the issuance of this office order, the petitioner has performed the duties of either a Cook or a Chowkidar in 7 the hostel of the College concerned, which happens to be a Government College. The source of the wages of the petitioner can not determine as to whether he is entitled for regularization or not. Having been engaged on temporary basis in terms of office order (Annexure A-1) and having continued to serve as such for four decades least that the petitioner expects from the respondents and that too, the State of Himachal Pradesh, which otherwise has to act as a model employer is that in deference to the long service rendered by him to the Department at least his services would be regularized, in terms of the policy of the State Government in vogue from time to time. Denial thereof by the respondents to the petitioner is not only an arbitrary and discriminatory act, but, is also an act, which defeat the legitimate expectation of the petitioner, as he legitimately expected that his services would be regularized, in terms of the policy of the State Government in vogue from time to time.” 8. There is another aspect of the matter. Since there is no dispute that number of teaching and non-teaching staff, who were given appointment under PTA Policy, have been given benefit of Policy of Regularization, petitioner herein, who was also given appointment by PTA of the college concerned and in that capacity, he has worked for more than 20 years, he cannot be denied similar relief, if denied it would amount to violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 9. Consequently, in view of the above, present petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 04.09.2015 (Annexure P-6) is quashed and set aside. Petitioner herein is held entitled to regularization after completion of eight years of service against the post of Mali. Since 8 petitioner kept mum for more than nine years after passing of impugned order, he shall not be entitled to monetary benefits qua afore period, but such period shall be counted for the purpose of seniority and other benefits. However, the petitioner shall be entitled to actual benefits from a date three years prior to the filing of the present petition. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. December 15, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (sunil) Judge 9