( 2025:HHC:26230-DB ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP No. 2298 of 2022. Reserved on: 23 rd July, 2025. Decided on : 5 th August, 2025. Lekh Ram …..Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. & Others ....Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes. For the Petitioner: Mr. Vikas Rathore, Advocate. For the Respondents: Ms. Seema Sharma, Dy. A.G. Satyen Vaidya, Judge. By way of instant petition, the petitioner has prayed for following substantive reliefs:- “(i) That the impugned rejection order dated 19.03.2022 contained in Annexure P-8 issued by respondent No.2 may kindly be quashed and set-aside. (ii) That the respondents may kindly be directed to regularize the services of the petitioner as driver on the completion of five years with all consequential benefits as per policy of the State Govt. as has been done in the case of similar situated persons. 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 ( 2025:HHC:26230-DB ) (iii) That the respondents may further be directed to regularize his services in light of judgment passed by this Hon’ble Court in CWP No. 2668/2019 dated 23.12.2019 titled as Rajinder Kumar versus State of H.P. & Anr., Annexure P- 4, within time bound period.” 2. The case as set up by the petitioner is that he was appointed as daily wage driver in the office of Deputy Commissioner, Bilaspur on 11.02.2011. Since then, he has been performing the duties to serve Revenue Department and at the time of filing of petition was deputed to drive the vehicle of Additional Deputy Commissioner, Bilaspur. It is also the case of the petitioner that on completion of five years of service, he requested for regularization of his services. His case was also recommended by respondent No.2 to the State Government. 3. Petitioner also claims himself to be possessed with all essential qualification required for the post of driver as he is 10+2 passed. 4. Petitioner has also contended that various similarly situated persons have been regularized by the State Government and the petitioner was being discriminated. 5. Petitioner having failed to get redressal of his grievance filed CWP No. 1016 of 2020 before this Court, which was disposed of vide order dated 01.09.2021 with direction to 3 ( 2025:HHC:26230-DB ) decide the representation of the petitioner. Thereafter, petitioner submitted another representation but nothing was heard from the respondents compelling the petitioner to file contempt proceedings being COPC No. 19 of 2022. The said contempt petition was disposed of by a coordinate Bench of this Court on 04.03.2022 with direction to the respondent to dispose of the representation of petitioner within two weeks. 6. The representation of petitioner was rejected vide order dated 19.03.2022 on the ground that the petitioner was not the employee of Revenue Department, rather he was appointed as driver in Zila Bachat Vikas Avam Sewa Samiti, Bilaspur ( hereinafter referred to as the ‘Samiti’) and, thus, his services could not be merged in the establishment of Revenue Department. 7. Reply to the petition has been filed only by respondents No.1, 2 and 4 through Deputy Commissioner, Bilaspur. It has been admitted that the petitioner was appointed as a driver in the Samiti on 11.02.2011 and an agreement of employment was executed with petitioner for one year, which expired on 10.02.2012. Thereafter, fresh agreement was executed for the period commencing from 11.02.2012 to 10.02.2013. During the first two years of the service of the petitioner, he was being paid fixed 4 ( 2025:HHC:26230-DB ) remuneration of Rs.4920/- per month and thereafter he is being paid daily wages as notified by the State Government from time to time. 8. The Samiti is Stated to be a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act. The Samiti, as per the respondents, was constituted on the instructions issued by the Director Small Savings, Government of Himachal Pradesh. 9. Respondents have also referred to instructions dated 01.11.2010 issued by the State Government to urge that the staff recruited by the Societies belong only to the Societies and their permanent absorption in departments against the sanctioned posts was prohibited. 10. It has also been admitted in the reply by the respondents that the petitioner has been performing his duties as driver in the Samiti and presently he was deputed to drive the vehicle of ADC, Bilaspur who was one of the members of the Samiti. 11. The respondents have further admitted that though the representation of the petitioner was submitted to the State Government but the same had met rejection with remarks that “petitioner has been working as driver in Small Saving Vikas Avam Seva Samiti, therefore, his services cannot be regularized under the establishment of Deputy 5 ( 2025:HHC:26230-DB ) Commissioner, Bilaspur as he is not an employee of Revenue Department”. 12. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the entire record carefully. 13. From the pleadings of the parties as also the documents placed on record one thing is clear that the petitioner has continuously been working as driver since the year 2011. It is also clear from the admission made in the reply that the petitioner has been driving the vehicle of ADC, Bilaspur. Though, it has been tried to be justified by contending that ADC, Bilaspur is one of the members of the Samiti, but the explanation or justification ex facie is without any substance. On 20.09.2024, this Court passed the following order:- “Arguments were heard on 13.9.2024 and judgment was reserved. However, at the time of dictating the judgment, it has been found that certain necessary information required to be submitted by respondents No. 2 and 3 are missing. I am of the opinion that the information as will be detailed hereinafter are necessary for adjudication of the issue involved in the matter:- i) The 2nd respondent will file an affidavit stating therein as to against which post, the petitioner was appointed in Zila Bachat Vikas Avam Sewa Samiti, Bilaspur. 6 ( 2025:HHC:26230-DB ) ii) The 3rd respondent shall also file his affidavit stating therein the details about the constitution of Zila Bachat Vikas Avam Sewa Samiti, Bilaspur and number of posts sanctioned in said Samiti. He shall also state about the financial control over the affairs of said Samiti and shall detail the fund used to manage said Samiti. The necessary affidavit be filed on or before the next date. List on 27.9.2024” 14. In compliance to the aforesaid order, the Deputy Commissioner, Bilaspur filed his affidavit dated 15.10.2024. It has been stated in the affidavit that the petitioner was appointed in the Samiti as driver for 12 months w.e.f. 11.02.2011 with condition to remain in service till replaced by regular employee by way of appointment or transfer whichever was earlier. As per the Deputy Commissioner, Bilaspur, the petitioner was also required to perform duties of multipurpose worker w.e.f. 28.02.2015 in addition to his own duties without any extra remuneration. Another averment made in the affidavit is that in the Bye-laws of the Samiti, there was no provision for filling up of any kind of post. 15. Another affidavit has been filed by respondent No.3, Director, Small Savings. He has stated that no posts have been sanctioned in the Samiti as per its Bye-laws. The financial control is vested with the Management Committee of 7 ( 2025:HHC:26230-DB ) the Samiti which is headed by the Deputy Commissioner, Bilaspur. The Samiti was constituted on the directions of Director, Small Savings, Himachal Pradesh. 16. Thus, what has transpired from the aforesaid accounts is that there is no post of driver in the Samiti and still the petitioner has been working on such nonexistent post for the last more than 15 years. The only inference which can be drawn from all available attending circumstances is that the appointment of petitioner as driver in the Samiti is just a camouflage to draw funds from the Samiti headed by the Deputy Commissioner, whereas, his services have been utilized in the office of Deputy Commissioner for driving the vehicle. Not only there is an admission regarding the petitioner having been deputed to drive the vehicle of ADC, Bilaspur, the petitioner has also placed on record certain documents, whereby he has been deputed to perform the duties of driver on vehicle No. HP-24-0007 deputed with the Additional District Magistrate, Bilaspur. Similarly, in 2019, the petitioner was deputed to drive the vehicle of Assistant Commissioner to Deputy Commissioner, Bilaspur. 17. Admittedly, the Samiti neither owns any vehicle nor has any sanctioned post of driver. 8 ( 2025:HHC:26230-DB ) 18. The question, thus, arises if there is no sanctioned post of driver in the Samiti and Bye-laws of Samiti do not permit such appointment, how and under what authority the Deputy Commissioner, Bilaspur had appointed the petitioner. 19. The case of petitioner for regularization has been rejected mainly on the ground that he was employee of the Samiti and his services could not be merged with the regular establishment of Revenue Department. The respondents cannot be allowed to apply rules according to their convenience. In fact, the conduct of the respondents reflects complete absence of rule of law. The State being the model employer cannot be accepted to use exploitative tactics. It is not understandable, if the appointment of the petitioner was dehors the rules, why the person(s) having violated rules has not been brought to book. 20. Further, the petitioner has placed on record sufficient material to show that the respondent-State has been selectively regularizing the services of incumbents who are similarly situated to the petitioners. Such fact is evident from the implementation of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in CWP No.2668 of 2019, titled as Rajinder Kumar vs. State of H.P. & Anr. In the said case the petitioner was appointed as Chowkidar in 9 ( 2025:HHC:26230-DB ) the Bachat Bhawan, Una. Despite having served for 10 years in the same capacity, the services of the petitioner in that case were not regularized. He approached this Court and vide judgment dated 23.12.2019, the State was directed to regularise the services of the petitioner keeping in view the mandate of the Constitutional Bench judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka and Ors. vs. Umadevi (3) and Ors., (2006)4 SCC 1. The petitioner has also placed on record an order of appointment of Chowkidar issued in favour of one Jagmohan on the establishment of Deputy Commissioner, Kangra at Dharamshala. As another example the petitioner has placed on record the order of appointment issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Mandi-cum-Chairman, Zila Bachat Vikas Avam Seva Samiti, Mandi whereby the appointment was given to a Caretaker employed in the similar kind of Samiti in Mandi District. 21. The conduct of respondents, as has emerged, definitely cannot be said to be confirming to the constitutional mandate of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The purpose of formulation of institutions like Samiti herein is to decentralize the Governmental functions and Constitutional obligations. Such institutions, thus, cannot be used to serve 10 ( 2025:HHC:26230-DB ) only the interests of certain public functionaries. These in fact are extended wings of the Government. 22. Admittedly, the petitioner has been working on daily wages w.e.f. 2013. The State Government has repeatedly been formulating policies for regularization of daily wage employees, who have served continuously for specified number of years. It is not understandable as to how the petitioner can be denied the benefit of such policies. The respondents have also admitted that the petitioner is qualified to be appointed as driver. 23. In result, the petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to regularize the services of the petitioner from the date he became eligible for regularization under the relevant regularization policy of the State Government by taking his initial date of service as 11.02.2011. The petitioner shall also be entitled to all consequential reliefs. 24. Petition is accordingly disposed of so also all pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. (Satyen Vaidya) Judge 5th August, 2025. (jai)