IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.2121 of 2022 Date of Decision: 10.09.2025 __________________________________________________________ Tarlesh Bali 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. Sanjeev Bhushan, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for State. __________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral): Petitioners herein, who were engaged in the year 1996 and 1997 respectively, as Beldar on daily wage basis were not permitted to complete 240 days in each calendar year, as a result thereof, they despite their having put in more than eight years of daily wage service, were not regularised and as such, approached this Court by way of CWP(T) No.1129 of 2008, titled as Tarlesh Bali and Others Vs. State of H.P. and Others, specifically alleging therein that w.e.f. the year 1996-97 till year 2005, they have been purposely given artificial/fictional breaks by respondents with a view to prevent them from claiming regularisation, after their having completed eight years of daily wage service. Coordinate Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 17.05.2010 (Annexure P-1) allowed the petition and while setting aside the action of 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 the respondents of giving artificial/fictional breaks, specifically observed in the judgment that artificial/fictional breaks given to the petitioners are condoned, only for the purpose of seniority, meaning thereby that petitioners in afore case could not have claimed monetary benefits for a period starting from 1996-97 till 2005. 2. Since despite there being aforesaid directions issued by this Court in case detailed hereinabove, petitioners herein were not regularised, petitioners filed contempt petition, but before same could be decided, respondents after having taken note of the fact that petitioners have completed more than eight years of service w.e.f. 2005, with 240 days in each calendar year, regularised their services in the year 2013, however, subsequently in contempt proceedings, an affidavit, enclosing therewith order thereby regularising the services of the petitioner w.e.f. 01.01.2005, came to be filed, as a result thereof, petitioners herein now stand regularised w.e.f. 01.01.2005. 3. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, learned Senior Counsel representing the petitioner is that since w.e.f. the year 2005, petitioners had been working continuously on regular basis, they could not have been denied monetary benefits qua the afore period and no order, if any, was ever passed by this Court while disposing of the CWP(T) No.1129 of 2008 that arrears, if any, on account of work charge status/regularisation shall be restricted for a 3 period of three years prior to filing of the petition. Though petitioners repeatedly filed representations, requesting therein respondents to grant them actual monetary benefits w.e.f. 2005 till their regularisation, but since no decision was taken thereupon, they are compelled to approach this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein for following reliefs: “i. That appropriate writ, order or direction may very kindly be issued directing the respondents to pay the salary of regularly appointed Beldar to the petitioners even after 01.01.2007 till the date of issuing of regularization order with effect from 01.01.2005 by further directing the respondents to pay the entire arrears to the petitioners, in the interest of law and justice. ii. That appropriate writ, order or direction may very kindly be issued directing the respondents to pay the entire arrears to the petitioners with effect from 01.01.2005, the date from which their services have been regularized alongwith interest @ 9% per annum, in the interest of law and justice.” 4. Pursuant to notices issued in the instant proceedings, respondents-State has filed reply, wherein facts, as have been taken noted hereinabove, are not in dispute, rather stand admitted. An attempt has been made to defeat the claim of the petitioner on the ground that this Court, while passing judgment dated 17.05.2010 in CWP(T) No.1129 of 2008, never directed the respondents to pay arrears from the date of regularisation, till actual payment, but yet respondents wrongly paid arrears w.e.f. 01.01.2005 to 31.12.2007 i.e. for three years. Mr. B.C. Verma, learned Additional Advocate General, while referring to the afore judgment, vehemently argued that artificial/fictional breaks given to the petitioners were condoned only for the purpose of seniority, if it is so, 4 there is/was no occasion, if any, for respondents to pay the actual monetary benefits to the petitioners qua the afore period. He further submitted that otherwise also, claim as put forth by the petitioner, deserves to be rejected on the ground of delay and laches, because present petition has been filed after an inordinate delay of six years. He submitted that order of regularisation was passed in the case of the petitioners in the year 2015, but thereafter petitioners remained silent till year 2022, when present petition came to be filed. 5. Having heard learned counsel representing the parties and perused material available on record, this Court finds that petitioners herein though were initially engaged on daily wage basis in the year 1996-97 respectively, and till date, they have been discharging their duties, but now in the capacity of regular employees. Since despite petitioners having completed more than eight years, if counted w.e.f. 1996-97, petitioners were not granted work charge status or regularisation, they approached this Court by way of CWP(T) No.1129 of 2008, alleging therein that purposely respondents w.e.f. 1996-97 till 2005 gave them artificial/fictional breaks with a view to prevent them from seeking regularisation after completion of eight years of daily wage service. 6. This Court having taken note of pleadings adduced on record by the respective parties in afore case, allowed the petition i.e. CWP(T) No.1129 of 2008, titled as Tarlesh Bali and Others Vs. State of 5 H.P. and Others, filed by the petitioners and quashed and set aside the action of the respondents in giving artificial/fictional breaks, as a result thereof, period starting from 1996-97 was also deemed to have been completed with 240 days in each calendar year. Since this Court while passing aforesaid judgment had observed that artificial/fictional breaks are condoned only for the purpose of seniority, respondents herein though at first instance regularised the services of the petitioners w.e.f. the year 2013, considering eight years of daily wage service with 240 days in each calendar year w.e.f. 2005, till passing of the order in the year 2013, but as has been observed hereinabove, subsequently in the event of filing contempt petition by the petitioners herein, aforesaid order of regularisation came to be modified and all the petitioners were granted work charge status/regularisation w.e.f. 01.01.2005. However, interestingly at that juncture, respondents on their own whims and fancies proceeded to grant arrears to the petitioners for a period of three years. Mr. B.C. Verma, learned Additional Advocate General, while justifying the afore action of the respondents, attempted to argue that since artificial/fictional breaks given to the petitioners were condoned only for the purpose of seniority, no illegality can be said to have been committed by the respondents while restricting the arrears for a period of three years. He further submitted that rather in terms of judgment passed by this Court, there was no occasion, if any, for respondents to give arrears for a period of three years, however, having carefully perused 6 judgment dated 17.05.2010 passed by this Court, vis-a-vis facts of the case, this Court is not persuaded to agree with Mr. B.C. Verma, learned Additional Advocate General, for the reason that this Court while passing afore judgment, though observed that artificial/fictional breaks given to the petitioners are condoned only for the purpose of seniority, but that would not mean that petitioners herein, who had been continuously working on regular basis w.e.f. the year 2005 till date, shall not be paid the consequential benefits for afore period till regularisation. As per judgment passed by this Court, petitioners could not have claimed monetary/financial benefits for the period, they were illegally and unauthorisedly given artificial/fictional breaks, but that period was otherwise required to be taken for the purpose of seniority. 7. In the case at hand, petitioners were given artificial/fictional breaks w.e.f. 1996-97 till the year 2005, meaning thereby, qua afore period, petitioners could not have claimed any monetary benefits, but once respondents themselves furnished affidavit in contempt proceedings, stating therein that in compliance of judgment dated 17.05.2010, services of the petitioners are being regularised w.e.f. 01.01.2005, which admittedly excludes the period of artificial/fictional breaks given to the petitioners w.e.f. 1996-97 to 2005, there was no occasion, if any, for them to deny the consequential benefits to the petitioners w.e.f. the year 2005, till passing of the order in the year 2015, 7 especially when petitioner had been working continuously on regular basis w.e.f. 01.01.2005, till passing of order in the year 2015. 8. True it is that respondents have committed mistake by granting arrears for a period of three years, but this Court is not persuaded to agree with Mr. B.C. Verma, learned Additional Advocate General, that respondents ought not have granted arrears in terms of judgment dated 17.05.2010, rather this Court is of the definite view that only qua the period in which petitioners herein were given artificial/fictional breaks i.e. 1996-97 till 2005, petitioners were not entitled to any financial/monetary benefits, but certainly after their regularisation w.e.f. 01.01.2005 till the passing of the order of regularisation in the year 2015, they could not have been denied actual monetary benefits. 9. This Court cannot lose sight of the fact that though in the instant case, petitioners had been working in respondent-department w.e.f. the year 1996-97 and still they are in service, but since period of artificial/fictional breaks have been ordered to be condoned only for the purpose of seniority, they are very much entitled to actual monetary benefits for a period starting from 01.01.2005, till passing of order of regularisation, especially when it is not in dispute that petitioners herein are continuously working. No doubt, till the passing of order in the year 2013, petitioners herein were working in the capacity of daily wage workers, but once on the directions issued by this Court, respondents 8 themselves ordered regularisation of the petitioners w.e.f. 01.01.2005, which fact further came to be clarified in the affidavit filed in the contempt petition in the year 2015, petitioners herein cannot be denied actual monetary benefits for the period starting from 01.01.2005 till passing of order of regularisation in the year 2015. 10. Having taken note of peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, as detailed hereinabove, this Court is not persuaded to agree with Mr. B.C. Verma, learned Additional Advocate General, that present petition deserves to be rejected on the ground of delay and laches. Once some right had accrued in favour of the petitioners with the passing of judgment dated 17.05.2010 in CWP(T) No.1129 of 2008, coupled with the fact that afore judgment has attained finality, there was no requirement, if any, for the petitioners to file representation or approach competent Court of law for grant of benefits, in terms of aforesaid judgment, rather in that regard, steps, if any, were to be taken by the respondents, which they miserably failed to do. Though at this stage, Mr. B.C. Verma, learned Additional Advocate General, attempted to argue that since no challenge was laid to the afore judgment by the petitioners, same has attained finality qua the petitioners, but as has been observed hereinabove, there was no reason, if any, for the petitioners to lay challenge to the afore judgment because same was in their favour. While deprecating the action of the respondents in giving artificial/fictional breaks to the petitioners, Court categorically ordered that 9 artificial/fictional breaks are condoned only for the purpose of seniority, meaning thereby, petitioners could not have claimed actual benefits qua the period, they were allegedly given artificial/fictional breaks, which admittedly in the case at hand has not been claimed by the petitioners, rather, their specific plea is that with effect from their regularisation in the year 2005, till passing of regularisation order, they are entitled to be granted actual benefits, especially when they have worked in aforesaid period. Moreover, by now it is well settled that in case of continuing wrong, plea of delay and laches would not come in the way of the petitioners. Interestingly, in the case at hand, respondents themselves at first instance proceeded to grant arrears for a period of three years, meaning thereby, though they were aware that in terms of judgment passed by this Court in earlier writ petition i.e. CWP(T) No.1129 of 2008, petitioners herein are entitled to actual monetary benefits, but yet with a view to defeat their rightful, proceeded to restrict the claim of the petitioners for a period of three years, which was not permissible in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 11. Perusal of Annexure RA-II, which is a HP TR-2 Pay Bill form, shows that the arrears of salary have been prepared with effect from 01.01.2005 to 31.12.2007, which seems to be result of misconstruction on the part of the concerned Clerk, who misread the Government instructions regarding restricting actual monetary benefits to three years prior to filing of the petition. In the case at hand, the Original 10 Application must have been filed prior to 2008, but in 2008, the Original Application was transferred to this Court and re-registered as CWP(T) No.1129 of 2008 and as such, 2008 has been taken as year of filing of petition. By misconstruing the said instructions, actual monetary benefits have been paid for a period of three years only. Though in the view of this Court, without specific order from the Court, arrears could not have been restricted to three years, but in any case, three years prior to 2008 come to 2005 and claim of petitioners is also from 2005, as such, there is no effect on the claim of the petitioners. But the construction drawn by the dealing hand, appears to be result of ignorance since even after restricting arrears to three years prior to 2008, same would have to be paid in continuity, thus, the petitioners are right in claiming that they are entitled to actual monetary benefits from 01.01.2008 to the date of regularisation in 2015, which have not been paid to them, which has apparently forced them to knock the doors of this Court. 12. Consequently, in view of above, the petition is allowed. Respondents are directed to calculate and pay arrears of salary to the petitioners from 01.01.2008 to 2015, when they were ordered to be regularized with effect from 01.01.2005. The exercise be completed within six months and arrears be paid to the petitioners thereafter. Though the petitioners are held not entitled to any interest on the amount of arrears, but in case, the respondents fail to pay the salary arrears to the petitioners within afore time, petitioners shall also be entitled to 11 interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date, they fell due, till the date of actual payment. The present petition is disposed in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge September 10, 2025 (Rajeev Raturi)