2025:HHC:10276 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CMP(M) No.282 of 2025 and LPA No.177 OF 2025 Decided on: 11.04.2025 __________________________________________________________ State of HP and others ...Applicants/ Appellants Versus Khem Raj ...Non-applicant/ Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge 1Whether approved for reporting? For the applicants/: Mr. Rakesh Dhaulta, Additional appellants Advocate General. G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice [Oral] CMP[M] No.282 of 2025 & LPA No.177 of 2025 The present appeal which is barred by 118 days has challenged the order of learned Single Judge in CWP No.790/2024, titled as Khem Raj Versus State of HP & Ors., decided on 16.07.2024, wherein the writ petitioner- respondent herein has been granted the benefit work- charged status/regularization in terms of regularization policy of the State dated 21.02.2019, with all consequential benefits. The actual monetary benefits were restricted to 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2025:HHC:10276 - 2 - three years, from the date of filing of the writ petition. 2. Learned Single Judge has relied upon earlier order passed in CWP No.789 of 2024, titled as Ram Singh Vs. State of HP & Ors., decided on 04.07.2024, wherein in similar circumstances, relief had been granted, rejecting the stand of the State that the employment was on daily wage basis. 3. We noticed that the present appeal has also been filed through Forest Department. Apparently, it is resorting to the appointments of persons like the respondent, actually working on daily wage basis on bill basis and employees claim regularization just as per policy of the State Government. Ram Singh’s case was the subject matter in consideration in LPA No.60 of 2025, decided on 27.02.2025, before this Court, wherein we have come to the conclusion that the nomenclature “bill basis” as such given by the Department would not absolve it from the applicability of the State to deny the benefits. The relevant portion reads as under :- “3. The argument raised before learned Single Judge, which has now also been repeated, is that the employee, as such, had been appointed on “bill basis” and not on “daily wage basis” and, therefore, the policy dated 22.04.2020 was not applicable in this case. 4. Learned Single Judge found that there was no intelligible differentia between a “daily wage worker” 2025:HHC:10276 - 3 - and “bill basis worker”, as such, and the benefit could not be denied in accordance with law on the basis of nomenclature and therefore, directed consideration, as noticed above, if the employee fulfilled the criteria of the regularization made in Annexure P-8. 5. It is not the case of the State that the policy of regularization is not applicable in this case and the only distinction sought to be made out is that the employement is on “bill basis” and therefore, the employee is not a daily wager who would be covered under the policy in question. The nomenclature as such, which has been given apparently by the State is on account of fertile imagination of the Department. Nothing was placed on record before the learned Single Judge to show that the nomenclature as such, which had been given of “bill basis” and that raising of a bill for a specific work as such, which might keep the employer out of the policy. The only document which was appended with the written statement as such, was a letter from the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest to the Department that certain employees as such had worked on “bill basis” and thus were not covered under the policy of regularization in view of the services provided. The written statement is silent about the nature of work which was done and whether it was for a specific purpose, which would have consumed the whole day or not and for which a bill might have been raised. Thus, the nomenclature which has been given by the Department, would not as such absolve it from the applicability of policy of the State to deny the benefit of regularization. 6. The learned Single Judge had noticed that the employment is from the year 2015 which was the categorical case in the writ petition and that the petitioner had completed 240 days in each calendar w.e.f. 01.01.2015 and appended the necessary man- days chart, regularization policy and a representation given on 01.12.2023. It would go on to show that communication dated 21.02.2021 regarding the appellant along with ten other daily wage workers for regularization was sent to the Chief Conservator of Forest, as per the regularization policy, but no action had been taken. 7. In such circumstances, the writ petition has been filed and there is no denial of the fact that the matter had been forwarded by the Chief Conservator of Forest and it is only a general denial that the claim is not tenable in view of the nomenclature. No material worth any substance was placed before the learned Single Judge, as noticed above, regarding the particular type of work for which the petitioner 2025:HHC:10276 - 4 - was appointed by the Department and whether the said work was not similar to that of the daily wager. 8. In such circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the distinction which is sought to be carved out by the State is without any justification or in the absence of any documentation placed on record. Therefore, the learned Single Judge has rightly directed consideration as per the policy of the State itself being recognized by the State to give the benefit of regularization being a welfare State which now cannot wriggle out from its own policy by resorting to this frivolous litigation. 9. Accordingly, we find no merit in the present appeal, the same is dismissed alongwith pending application(s), if any.” 4. Keeping in view the above, we are of the considered opinion that there is no plausible reason, as such, take a different view on what we have already taken. 5. Resultantly, we do not find any merit in the present appeal and we dismiss the same. 6. Consequently, the application for condonation of delay stands disposed of as having become infructuous. 7. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (G.S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice (Ranjan Sharma) Judge April 11, 2025 [Bhardwaj/Chiranjeev]