IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.2463 of 2024 Date of Decision: 1.8.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Anish Kumar and Ors. ……...Petitioners Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Rakesh Kumar Dogra, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) Precisely, the grouse of the petitioners, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. Rakesh Dogra, learned counsel for the petitioners is that their counterparts, who were selected through same recruitment process, but joined prior to them on account of their having received appointment letter ahead of them have been regularized w.e.f. 1.20.2020, whereas petitioners without any fault have been granted benefit of regularization w.e.f. 1.4.2021 i.e. at a later stage. 2. Precisely, facts of the case as emerge from the record are that vide order dated 27.9.2017, petitioners herein alongwith other candidates came to be appointed as JOAs (IT) pursuant to recommendation of the Himachal Pradesh Subordinate Staff Selection - 2 - Commission, Hamirpur. After receipt of appointment letters, petitioners joined the post of JOA(IT) on 3.10.2017 and since then, they have been working in the respective District Treasury Offices. As a matter of practice, respondents regularize the contractual services on completion of requisite period in two slabs; first by 31st March and second by 30th September every year. Contractual services of the some of the counterparts of the petitioners, who had joined earlier, came to be regularized in the first slab vide order dated 1.10.2020 (Annexure P-8), whereas petitioners came to be regularized in the second slab i.e. after six months, vide order dated 1.4.2021 (Annexure P-9). 3. Though as per pleadings adduced on record by the respective parties, petitioners were appointed as JOAs(IT) on contract basis vide different orders dated 27.9.2017 (Annexure P-1 to P5), but since they joined the department on 3.10.2017, they were regularized on 1.4.2021, after their having completed three years contract service in terms of Government of Himachal Pradesh Letter No. PER (AP)-C- B(2)-I/2019, dated 30.1.2021. 4. Precisely, case of the petitioners is that since appointment order dated 27.9.2017, was not received by them well in time on account of there being public holidays for three days w.e.f. 30.9.2017 to 2.10.2017, they could only join on 3.10.2017, whereas some of the counterparts, who received copy of appointment letter from the - 3 - department itself on 27.9.2017, joined on 28.9.2017 and 29.9.2017, as a result thereof, they became eligible to be regularized w.e.f. 1.10.2021, whereas petitioners, who received appointment letters dated 27.9.2017 after 2.10.2017, could join on 3.10.2017, as a result thereof, their services were regularized w.e.f. 1.4.2021. 5. One of the petitioners namely Kuldeep Chand made a representation to respondent No.2 in May 2020, which was forwarded to District Treasury Officer, Una, who further forwarded the same to respondent No.2 vide letter dated 11.6.2020, for his regularization from the date his counterparts, who were appointed on same day, were given regularization i.e. w.e.f. 1.4.2021, but fact remains that nothing favourable was heard from the respondents. Vide another representation (Annexure P-21) forwarded vide letter dated 17.11.2021 (Annexure P-22), petitioner No.3 again represented to respondent No.2 to consider his case in light of judgment dated 26.3.2021, passed by Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in CWP No. 5488 of 2020, titled Gulshan Bhatia and Ors. v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Anr., for regularization of his services w.e.f. 1.10.2020 instead of 1.4.2021. Though afore representation was forwarded by District Treasury Office Una, to respondent No.2 vide letter dated 17.11.2021, but prayer made by the petitioner No3 was not accepted. 6. Though respondent No.4 having received instructions from Department of Personnel advised all District Treasury Offices - 4 - vide letter dated 27.7.2022, to examine the matter in light of Gulshan Bhatia (supra) and observation made by Department of Personnel reproduced therein, but yet services of the petitioners were not regularized from the date his counterparts were regularized. 7. Careful perusal of afore communication dated 6.4.2022 (Annexure P-16) if perused in its entirety reveals that Department of Personnel after having received number of representations as well as judgment passed by this Court in Gulshan Bhatia (supra) decided to condone the period of delay due to holidays or any utmost impediment, but yet respondents ignoring the fact that there were public holidays for three days w.e.f. 29.9.2017 to 2.10.2017 after issuance of appointment letter dated 27.9.2017, failed to regularize the petitioners from the date their counterparts were regularized. 8. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with aforesaid approach of respondents, petitioners approached this Court by way of CWP No. 5939 of 2023, titled as Anish Kumar and others v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors., which came to be disposed of vide order dated 31.8.2023, with the direction to the respondents to consider and decide respective case of the petitioners in light of Gulshan Bhatia supra as well as instructions of HP Government dated 6.4.2022. 9. Respondents vide order dated 03.01.2024 and 23.01.2024, rejected the case of the petitioners vide non-speaking and unreasoned - 5 - order and as such, petitioners are compelled to approach this court in the instant proceedings, praying therein for following reliefs: (i) That the impugned orders dated 03.01.2024 and 23.01.2024 contained in Annexure P-25, P-26, P-27 & P-28 respectively passed by the respondent No. 2 may kindly be quashed and set- aside being wrong, illegal, arbitrary, whimsical, discriminatory and violative of judgment delivered by this Hon'ble Court in Gulshan Bhatia's case (Annexure P-15) as well as instructions of respondent No. 3 contained in Annexure P-16 dated 06.04.2022, by issuing writ of Certiorari and justice be done; (ii) That a writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued, directing the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioners with effect from 01.10.2020 instead of 01.04.2021 with all consequential benefits including seniority etc. etc., as their cases are squarely covered by the judgment dated 26.03.2021 (Annexure P-15) rendered by the Hon'ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh in CWP No. 5488 of 2020 titled as Gulshan Bhatia and others vs. State of H.P. and another as well as instructions of the Department of Personnel, Govt. of H.P. contained in letter dated 06.04.2022 (Annexure P-16) issued by the respondent No. 3-Addl. Chief Secretary (Personnel) to the Govt. of H.P. in compliance to the aforesaid judgment, with a direction to all Administrative Secretaries to the Govt. of HP, Shimla-2 for strict compliance, and justice be done; iii) That a writ in the nature of mandamus may also be issued, directing the respondents to pay arrears to the petitioners flowing out of regularization of their services w.e.f. 01.10.2020 instead of 01.04.2021 alongwith interest & 9% per annum and interest part be ordered to be recovered from the erring officers by holding an inquiry against them and justice be done; - 6 - iv) To grant to the petitioners such other consequential reliefs, which the Hon'ble Court may deem fit, just and proper in facts and circumstances of the matter; 10. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case. 11. Pleadings adduced on record by the respective parties if read in conjunction nowhere dispute factum with regard to selection of the petitioners to the post of JOA (IT), rather it has been categorically admitted by respondents No.1 to 4 in their reply that petitioners were appointed as JOA (IT) on contract basis vide department order dated 27.9.2017 and thereafter they joined the department on 3.10.2017. Claim of the petitioners to regularize their services from retrospective date has not been accepted by the respondents on account of their joining of service on 3.10.2017, rather their services have been regularized w.e.f. 1.4.2021, after their having completed three years service as per Government of Himachal Pradesh Department of Personnel Order dated 30.3.2021. 12. Entire controversy revolves around receipt of appointment letter dated 27.9.2017, by the petitioners, who are admittedly residents of District Una. As per reply filed by the respondents appointment orders were issued on 27.9.2017 and thereafter two working days were available, however case of the petitioners is that they did not receive appointment letter dated 27.9.2017, till 3.10.2017 on account of the fact that w.e.f. 30.9.2017 to 2.10.2017, there were - 7 - three public holidays. Though factum with regard to there being public holidays on the afore dates, has not been disputed by the respondents, but it is averred in their reply that petitioners herein could join within two working days after issuance of appointment letter dated 27.9.2017 i.e. on 28th and 29th September, 2017. Once it is admitted in the reply filed by the respondents that appointment orders dated 27.9.2017 were sent to the petitioners by ordinary post on their addresses, which are of District Una, this court can well presume that petitioners could not get aforesaid communication enclosing therewith appointment orders dated 27.9.2017 on 28 or 29 September and thereafter, there were three continuous public holidays. Petitioners immediately after having received appointment order dated 27.9.2017 on 3.10.2017 joined at their respective places. Counterparts of the petitioners, who were also selected through the same process and were given appointment vide appointment order dated 27.9.2017 could join on their respective places on account of the fact that they were the residents of Shimla or nearby, so they after having received copy of appointment letters directly from the office, joined at their respective places before 29.9.2017, as a result thereof, they became eligible for regularization w.e.f. 1.10.2020 in terms of policy of regularization framed by Government of Himachal Pradesh. 13. In similar facts and circumstances, Division Bench of this Court in Gulshan Bhatia (supra), directed the respondents to condone - 8 - the period of three days i.e. 29.9.2017 till 2.10.2017, as a result thereof, petitioners in that case, came to be granted benefit of regularization w.e.f. 1.10.2020. Though Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 31.8.2023, passed in CWP No. 5939 of 2023, titled as Anish Kumar and others v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors., filed by the petitioner directed the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners in light of Gulshan Bhatia as per instructions of Himachal Pradesh Government dated 6.4.2022, which admittedly came to be issued after passing of judgment passed in Gulshan Bhatia case, but interestingly, respondents vide order dated 03.01.2024 and 23.01.2024, rejected claim of the petitioners for regularization from respective dates by a nonspeaking order. If the aforesaid orders are read, no plausible explanation can be said to have been rendered on record for not considering case of the petitioner for regularization w.e.f. 1.10.2020. There is no discussion, if any, with regard to judgment passed by Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in Gulshan Bhatia case. 14. Though in terms of judgment passed in Gulshan Bhatia’s case, instructions dated 6.4.2022 (Annexure P-16) came to be issued specifically containing therein direction to the appropriate authority to condone the period of delay due to holidays or any utmost impediment, but prayer of the petitioners for their regularization from - 9 - back date after condoning the delay due to holidays came to be rejected. 15. Though Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, while referring to order passed in purported compliance of directions contained in Anish Kumar (supra) attempted to argue that facts of Gulshan Bhatia’s case were altogether different because in that case appointment order was received on 29.9.2017 and thereafter there were three public holidays, however, in the instant case, appointment letters were issued on 27.9.2017 and thereafter, there were two working days being 28th and 29th September, but yet petitioners failed to join on or before 30.9.2017, making themselves eligible for regularization w.e.f. 1.10.2020. However, this court is not impressed with the aforesaid submission of Mr. Kahol, for the reason that though no doubt, appointment letters in the case of the petitioners were issued on 27.9.2017, but since same were sent to the petitioners by way of ordinary process, they could not receive the same within next two days and thereafter, there were three continuous public holidays. If it is so, petitioners rightly claimed that they received appointment letter on 3.10.2017 and thereafter, they immediately joined at respective stations. 16. Since nothing has been adduced on record by the respondents to prove factum of delivery of letter, containing therein appointment order through ordinary process on 28th or 29th September - 10 - coupled with the fact that there were three continuous holidays w.e.f 30.9.2017, explanation rendered by the petitioners w.r.t. their joining on 3.10.2017 needs to be accepted. Moreover, once Department of Personnel vide communication dated 6.4.2022, taking note of judgment passed in Gulshan Bhatia (supra) had directed to condone period of delay or utmost impediment, there was otherwise no occasion for the respondents to reject the claim of the petitioners. Though at the cost of repetition, it is apt to take note of reply filed by the respondents, wherein they have stated that instructions dated 6.4.2022 as well as mandate contained in Gulshan (supra) could not be made applicable to the case of the petitioners for the reason that after issuance of appointment letter dated 27.9.2017, there were two working days, but as has been observed herein above, since aforesaid appointment orders dated 27.9.2017 were sent to the petitioners by ordinary post, by no stretch of imagination they could receive the same on the next day or within two days. Otherwise also, reliance placed upon office order dated 6.4.2022 by the respondents for delaying the regularization of the petitioners contractual service for six months, is not tenable. Relevant extract of the aforesaid office letter dated 6.4.2022 reads as under: “I am directed to invite your attention to the subject cited above and to say that two cut off dates i.e. 31 March and 30th September have been fixed to consider the eligibility of contract appointees for their regularisation every year. - 11 - 2. The cases are being received frequently for clarification on the point that in appointment is made/issued on the last working day of the case the offer/order of month(s) of March or September and the incumbent is unable to join in the same month after completion of the prescribed formalities due to holidays falling immediately after the last working day in that particular month and joins the services in the next month can his/her services be considered for regularization in the month of April or October on completion of the prescribed length of contract services? In the judgement passed on 26.03.2022 by the Hon'ble High Court of H.P. in CWP No. 5488 of 2020 titled as Gulshan Bhatia and Others Vs State of H.P., it has been directed to condone the period of delay due to holidays or any utmost impediment. 3. After careful consideration of the matter and also in order to remove the hardships being faced by the individuals due to maximal restriction, which deprives to give joining due to holidays immediately after issuance of appointment order, it has been decided by the Government to condone the period of holidays only in such cases where the offer/order of appointment is made/issued on the last working day of the month of March or September, as the case may be, and holiday(s) fall(s) immediately thereafter restricting the incumbent to give joining in that particular month of appointment. The date of issuance of offer/order of appointment will be reckoned as cutoff date for regularization and such period and joining time shall be considered as condoned inter-se. 4.These instructions may be brought to the notice of all concerned for strict compliance and implementation. 5.He above instructions can be seen at www.himachal.nic.in/personnel.” 17. Careful perusal of aforesaid letter clearly reveals that same caters to an entirely different facts and situation, where the given last date of joining happens to be a holiday and the incumbent gives joining on next working day, however in present case, situation is not same, rather in the case at hand petitioners failed to join on or before 30.9.2017 on account of their having received appointment - 12 - letters on 3.10.2017. Since petitioners as well as other counterparts, who have been given regularization w.e.f 1.10.2020 were selected through same process and pursuant to appointment letter dated 27.9.2017 they cannot be differentiated in the matter of regularization of their contractual services on the basis of different dates of joining, especially when they all joined within the allotted joining time. Hence action of the respondents in regularizing the contractual service of the petitioners six months after regularizing the contractual services of other successful candidates cannot be appreciated, rather same is required to be held bad in law. 18. In similar facts and circumstances, coordinate Bench of this court in CWP No. 2602 of 2023, titled as Sapna Kumari and Ors. v. State of Himachal Pradesh and another decided on 22.7.2025 held as under: “4. In the given facts and circumstances, petitioners’ grievance is justified. Petitioners and other incumbents had participated for appointment to the posts of Supervisors to be filled up on contract basis under the advertisement dated 13.02.2015. Petitioners and other incumbents were declared successful in the selection process by the respondents on 04.12.2015. Similar letters of offer of appointments were issued by the respondents to the petitioners and other successful incumbents on 30.03.2016. All the successful candidates including the petitioners were directed to join their duties by 16.04.2016. It appears that some of the successful candidates, who because of fortuous circumstances viz. proximity to the headquarters; timely & quickly becoming aware of the offer of appointments issued to them; proximate place of assigned posting etc., were able to join on 31.03.2016/01.04.2016. Whereas the petitioners who got the details of their having been offered appointment to the posts of Supervisors - 13 - through post dispatched on 04th & 05th April, 2016 and some of them having been assigned places of duties in tribal/hard/difficult areas could join such places after completing the codal formalities including undergoing medical fitness process later than the other successful candidates but within the joining time given under the offers of appointment. This being the admitted position, those who were able to join their contractual duties earlier pursuant to the similar offers of appointment cannot be permitted to steal march over the others (petitioners) only on the basis of their such dates of joining by regularizing their services prior in time. The petitioners cannot be put to disadvantage by segregating them from other candidates selected in the same recruitment process in matter of regularization of their contractual services merely on the basis of petitioners’ later dates of joining. Petitioners and other successful candidates comprise one unit as all of them had joined within the joining time given to them in the offer of appointments. Regularizing contractual services of such equally placed candidates by taking their dates of joining as the foundation, would amount to creating class within class. This would be an artificial distinction, discriminatory and in violation of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India. It is the date of offering the appointment and the fact that the selected candidates had joined within the given joining time, which would be relevant factor for purpose of regularizing contractual services. Once the contractual services of other successful candidates have been regularized on 02.05.2019, there is no reason as to why the contractual services of the petitioners cannot be regularized from the said date. There is no reason for delaying regularization of petitioners’ contractual services by six months merely on the ground that they joined their duties little later than the other successful candidates, though their joining was within the given joining time.” 19. Consequently, in view of the above, present petition is allowed and respondents are directed to regularize the contractual services of the petitioner at par with their counterparts w.e.f. same date i.e. 1.10.2020, with all consequential benefits. Since petitioners are fighting for their rightful claim for quite long, this Court hopes and - 14 - trusts that needful shall be done expeditiously, preferably, within six weeks. In the aforesaid terms, present petition is disposed of alongwith pending applications, if any. August 1, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (manjit) Judge