( 2025:HHC:25373 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWPOA No.4424 of 2020 Decided on: 30thJuly, 2025 Krishan Chand .......Petitioner versus State of H.P. and others ...Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner: Mr. M.A. Safee, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr.Hemant K. Verma, Deputy Advocate General. Satyen Vaidya, Judge(Oral) The instant petition has been filed for following substantive relief:- “(i) That the respondents may kindly be directed to regularize the services of the applicant w.e.f. 03.10.2017 i.e. the date when the similarly situated as well as junior persons were given regularization, with all consequential benefits such as; salary for the intervening period, seniority at the appropriate place and other allied service benefits.” 2. In a batch wise recruitment, the petitioner was appointed as junior Draughtsman (Civil) on contract basis vide memorandum dated 21.07.2014 against the post reserved for SC/IRDP category. 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. ( 2025:HHC:25373 ) 2 3. The petitioner had passed the diploma course from Baba Mungipa Industrial Training Institute, Pilani Rajasthan in the trade “Draughtsman (Civil)” in the batch of 1986-1988. The petitioner had completed his course in January, 1989. 4. As per policy for regularization, the petitioner became entitled for regularization on completion of three years of continuous contract service. However, the petitioner was denied the benefit of regularization, whereas, other similarly situated persons were regularized vide office order dated 03.10.2017. 5. The petitioner approached the erstwhile H.P. State Administrative Tribunal by way of Original Application No.2838 of 2018. The learned Tribunal vide order dated 22.05.2018 granted liberty to the respondent/competent authorities to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization at par with his junior counterparts. In compliance, the Registrar, HP PWD vide memorandum dated 27.11.2019, considered and rejected the case of the petitioner on the ground that one Smt.Rama Kumari had submitted her representation against the appointment of petitioner and another incumbent Bhagirath alleging interalia that she ( 2025:HHC:25373 ) 3 belonged to 1986-88 batch, whereas, the petitioner was of 1989 batch. On this complaint, the records were stated to have been verified and it was allegedly found that the petitioner had obtained the diploma in Draughtsman (Civil) in the year 1989, but in the list of candidates, which was sponsored by the employment exchange, Sunder Nagar during batch-wise recruitment, the batch of the petitioner was shown as 1987. 6. On abolition of the H.P. State Administrative Tribunal the Original Application of the petitioner came to be transferred to the files of this Court and was registered as CWPOA No.4424 of 2020 i.e. the instant petition. 7. In reply filed by the respondents it has been averred that in the recommendations of employment exchange, Sunder Nagar, the passing year of diploma by petitioner was shown as 1987. On such basis, it is alleged that the petitioner had procured such recommendations against the correct factual position in order to gain advantage. In nutshell the respondents have contested the claim of petitioner on the same grounds on which his case was rejected by the Registrar HP PWD. ( 2025:HHC:25373 ) 4 8. Having heard both the sides and also having gone through the records, I am of the considered view that the defence raised by the respondents or the reasons assigned by the Registrar, HP PWD vide his memorandum dated 27.11.2019 have no basis. 9. The diploma certificate issued in favour of the petitioner clearly reflects his batch as “August, 1986 to July, 1988”. It also reveals that the petitioner had passed all the subjects till July, 1988 except the subject of Social Studies, which he had qualified in January, 1989. Accordingly, the date of passing of the diploma, in the certificate, has been mentioned as January, 1989. 10. The petitioner has placed on record copy of recommendations sent by the sub-employment office, Sunder Nagar, wherein the petitioner has been shown to have passed diploma course in 1988. The respondents have also relied upon another memorandum dated 23.08.2014 issued by the Engineer-in-chief, HP PWD, wherein the name and particulars in respect of the petitioner find mention at Serial No.11 in a tabulated form and again the batch of the petitioner has been shown as 1986-88. ( 2025:HHC:25373 ) 5 11. As against the above evidence, the respondents have not placed on record any material to justify their stand. Neither the recommendations of employment exchange, wherein the batch of the petitioner was allegedly shown as 1987 has been placed on record nor there is an iota of evidence to show that such information allegedly supplied by the employment exchange to the administrative department was in connivance or collusion with the petitioner. 12. Viewed from another angle, the stand taken by the respondents can also not be countenanced for the reason that the petitioner has never been afforded an opportunity to explain his stand before taking action against him having civil and evil consequences. 13. During the pendency of the instant petition, the petitioner attained the age of superannuation on 31.08.2022 and has retired from service as a contract employee only. 14. Since, the stand of the respondents has been found to be unjustified, their action in not regularizing the services of the petitioner after three years of contract service is harsh, irrational and arbitrary, hence discriminatory. 15. In result, the petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to regularize the services of the petitioner as ( 2025:HHC:25373 ) 6 junior Draughtsman w.e.f. 03.10.2017, when his immediate junior was regularized. The petitioner shall also be entitled to all consequential benefits. The entire exercise shall be completed by the respondents within eight weeks from the date of passing of this judgment. 16. The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms, so also the pending applications, if any. July 30, 2025 ( Satyen Vaidya ) (naveen) Judge