IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 3479 of 2025 Date of Decision:26.08.2025 _______________________________________________________ Shiv Kumar …….Petitioner Versus The State of Himachal Pradesh and others … Respondents ______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Nishant Khidtta, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol and Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocate Generals and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. _______________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for following main relief:- “(i) That writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued directing the respondents to consider the candidature of the petitioner for regularization Forest Worker/ Fire Watcher/Class IV as per the policy being adopted by the respondents with all the consequential benefits; (ii) That the respondents may be directed to put the name of the petitioner in the seniority list of the daily wager so that his candidature can be considered for regularization as per the policy of the State Government; (iii) That the respondents may kindly be directed to pay the salary to the petitioner on the principle of “equal pay of equal work” as being paid to the regular Forest worker/Fire watcher/ Class IV.” 2. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr.Nishant 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 Khidtta, learned counsel for the petitioner, is that though petitioner has been working regularly as Fire watcher/Forest worker in Forest Beat, Lohagarh under Forest Block, Lohagarh in Range Kollar, Forest Division Nahan, Himachal Pradesh, but yet he is being denied the benefit of regularization in terms of policy of regularization framed by the Government of Himachal Pradesh. 3. Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the pleadings adduced on record by the respective parties, are that petitioner was engaged as Forest worker/Fire watcher in Beat Lohagarh under Forest Block Lohagarh in Range Kollar, Forest Division Nahan, Himachal Pradesh in the year, 2017 and since then he has been working regularly on daily wage basis. It is averred in the petition that petitioner has been performing his duties as Forest worker/Fire watcher including plantation work, maintaining nurseries, preparation of maps, location of tracks and field patrolling throughout the beat. It is further stated that though petitioner has been working on daily wage basis, but an attempt has been made to defeat his rightful claim of regularization on the pretext that he is not paid daily wages, but on bill basis for daily work. 4. Pursuant to the notices issued in the instant proceedings, respondents-State has filed reply, wherein though factum with regard to engagement of the petitioner as Fire watcher has been admitted, 3 but it has been categorically denied that he was engaged on daily wage basis. Respondents have categorically averred in their reply that petitioner was engaged on seasonal basis, that too, on the basis of quotation. The petitioner is being paid on monthly/yearly basis, as is evident from the bank details placed on record. It also emerges from the pleadings adduced on record by the respondents that petitioner is being paid on the basis of bills submitted by the Range Forest Office. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record carefully. 6. It is not in dispute, rather stands admitted by the respondents that petitioner has been working as Forest worker/Fire watcher in the forest beat, as detailed hereinabove, since the year, 2017. Though, petitioner has claimed that he has been working continuously w.e.f. 2017, but respondents, while admitting award of work to the petitioner w.e.f.2017, have categorically stated that petitioner has been awarded work on seasonal basis as per requirement. While making this Court peruse reply filed by the respondents, Mr. Ravi Chauhan, learned Deputy Advocate General, states that no material, worth credence, has been adduced on record by the petitioner suggestive of the fact that he was engaged on daily wage basis, rather bare perusal of bank account statement placed on 4 record clearly reveals that he was being paid on monthly/yearly basis, that too, on the basis of bills raised by the Range Forest Officer. 7. Mr. Nishant Khidtta, learned counsel representing the petitioner, argued that the petitioner has been working on daily wage basis, but the respondents with a view to prevent him from claiming regularization in terms of policy of regularization framed by the Government of Himachal Pradesh, have purposely adopted the practice of transferring the payment in the bank account of the petitioner on bill basis. He submitted that though petitioner has been discharging daily tasks such as digging, carrying of bags, plantation work and repair of fencing, but yet is being paid on monthly/yearly basis. He stated that expression showing the petitioner’s engagement on bill basis is only to oust the him from the benefit of policy of regularization. 8. This Court finds that though petitioner has been working with the Forest Department since 2017, but definitely no document has been adduced on record by the petitioner suggestive of the fact that he has been working on daily wage basis, rather own averments of the petitioner, as detailed in the petition, clearly suggest that that he has been receiving payments on monthly/yearly basis. Documents annexed with the reply filed by the respondents clearly suggest that petitioner was awarded work of digging of pits, carriage of bag from 5 road side depot to plantation site by manual labour and repair of fencing and thereafter, he was paid as per the rates quoted by him in the quotation. Respondents in the reply have categorically denied factum of petitioner’s employment on daily wage basis, rather to show engagement of the petitioner on the basis of quotation given by him, bank statements have been placed on record, which clearly prove that petitioner has been paid on monthly basis and on some occasion on yearly basis. Had respondents engaged the petitioner on daily wage basis, muster roll marking his daily attendance ought to have been placed on record. However, in the instant case, neither petitioner nor respondents have placed on record muster roll, if any, issued by the respondents. Though learned counsel for the petitioner attempted to argue that respondents have with held crucial documents from the Court, but this Court is of the view that onus to prove engagement of the petitioner on daily wage basis was upon the petitioner. No document, worth credence, has been placed on record suggestive of the fact that on each and every day, petitioner herein has been marking his presence. 9. To the contrary, respondents have placed on record bills suggestive of the fact that bills were being prepared qua each work on monthly /yearly basis. Bills were being prepared on the basis of information submitted by Range Forest Officer of the Forest 6 concerned. At no point of time, petitioner, who claims himself to have been engaged on daily wage basis, ever raised objection with regard to delay in payment, rather he kept on receiving salary in his account for months and years. Normally, a daily wage employee would receive wages on monthly basis and he could not wait for months to receive wages. However, in the instant case, bank details placed on record clearly reveal that petitioner has been paid in thousands and lakhs on the basis of bill submitted by him after frequent intervals. Otherwise also, this Court is persuaded to agree with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, learned Deputy Advocate General that petitioner, if engaged as fire watcher, cannot be expected to work for the whole year, rather his services would be required on seasonal basis, like other similarly situate persons. 10. Consequently, in view of the detailed discussion made hereinabove, this Court finds no merit in the present petition and accordingly same is dismissed alongwith pending applications, if any. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge August 26, 2025 (shankar)