2026:HHC:23255 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWPOA No.1919 of 2019 Decided on: 18.06.2026 Leela Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Anr. ...Respondents Coram Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the petitioner: Ms. Archna Dutt, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Vishav Deep Sharma, Additional Advocate General. Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge (Oral) The petitioner, by way of present petition, has prayed for the following substantive relief:- “i). That the respondents may kindly be directed to give regularization to the petitioner from due date i.e. from the year 2007 instead of 2011 with all consequential benefits like arrears, seniority and other service benefits forthwith in the interest of justice and fair play.” 2. The facts as borne out from the petition are that the petitioner was appointed as Instructor (Electronics) on contract basis vide office order dated 29.10.1999 (Annexure P-1). When the petitioner was not regularized despite the fact that the State Government had issued the instructions dated 09.09.2008 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 (Annexure P-4), though he had completed 8 years of continuous service with 240 days in each calendar year from the year 2007, he had approached this Court by CWP No.2244 of 2011, titled, Leela Singh Vs. State of H.P. & another, which came to be disposed of on 27.05.2011, directing the second respondent in the petition to look into the matter and take appropriate action in accordance with law within a period of four months from the date of production of copy of the judgment alongwith a copy of the writ petition. 3. In sequel to the said direction, the petitioner was regularized as per office order dated 30.09.2011 (Annexure P-3) in the pay scale of Rs.10300-34800 plus 3800/- Grade Pay with initial start of Rs.14,590/- plus usual allowances admissible from time to time. After passing of the office order dated 30.09.2011 (Annexure P-3), the petitioner has approached this Court seeking relief that his services ought to have been regularized after completion of 8 years of contract service as per the policy of the State Government issued vide communication dated 09.09.2008 (Annexure P-4). As per this communication, the contract employees, who had completed 8 years of continuous service as on 31.03.2008 were to be regularized and since the petitioner had 3 completed 8 years of service in the year 2007, his services ought to have been regularized from the year 2007. It has also been averred that the respondent-Department had earlier also regularized the services of the candidates after relaxing the requisite qualifications as is evident from a perusal of letter dated 09.10.2007 (Annexure P-5) and thus, the respondent-Department has discriminated against the petitioner by regularizing his services after putting in 12 years of contract service. As such, the action on the part of the respondent-Department is wrong, illegal and against the policy of the State Government. The respondents ought to have acted as a model employer to extend the similar benefit to the petitioner as extended to other employees. 4. The respondents filed reply to the petition and not disputed the policy decision of the State Government regarding regularization of the services of the contractual staff, vide letter dated 09.09.2008. However, it has been stated that the services of the petitioner have been regularized vide office order dated 30.09.2011, subject to the condition that he should complete prescribed Training Methodology Modules (P.O.T) within one year as per the R&P Rules of the post under reference. It has also been admitted by the respondents that in the year 2007, the 4 services of 12 contractual appointees, who had completed 8 years of service upto 31.12.2006 were regularized, out of which 4 were regularized in relaxation of education qualification with the prior approval of the Competent Authority. It has further been averred that the petitioner had completed 8 years of service on 05.10.2007, but since he was not eligible as on 31.12.2006, for the reason that he had not completed 8 years of services, he was not regularized. The relaxation of educational qualification was considered by the Government only in respect of the incumbents, who had completed 8 years’ service as on 31.12.2006. It is also averred that the petitioner did not fulfill requisite qualification i.e. Craft Training Institute Training of at least one year duration in the trade concerned in the category as prescribed in Column 7(iii) of the R&P Rules of the respective post. However, respondent No.1 vide office letter dated 08.01.2010 directed respondent No.2 that the officials, who do not fulfill the eligibility criteria must acquire the requisite educational qualification before, being considered for regularization. 5. The petitioner filed rejoinder to the reply and placed on record the diploma of one year course in Consumer Electronics, issued in the year 1995. The petitioner has further 5 averred that Ms. Rashmi Sood and Ms. Kanchan Devi, who were appointed on 01.02.2002, their services were regularized after completion of 8 years’ service w.e.f. 01.11.2010. It has also been averred that the petitioner after regularization has completed his training course. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record carefully. 7. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was appointed as Instructor (Electronics) on contract basis vide office order dated 29.10.1999. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner had completed 8 years of service as on 05.10.2007. It is also not in dispute that in the cases of four persons, whose services were regularized after completion of 8 years, which period they had completed up to 31.12.2006, respondent No.1 had granted them relaxation of educational qualification, while regularizing their services. Once respondent No.1 had granted the relaxation in educational qualification to four persons, the same benefit ought to have been extended to the petitioner, who had completed 8 years’ service as on 05.10.2007. It is not in dispute that the petitioner had completed 8 years of service as on 05.10.2007, but his case was not considered only for the reason that he had not 6 completed 8 years of service as on 31.12.2006. 8. As per the policy decision taken by the respondents- State, as conveyed vide communication dated 09.09.2008, the persons who had been appointed on contract basis and had completed 8 years of service as on 31.03.2008 were to be regularized and in case of two persons mentioned above namely Ms. Rashmi Sood and Ms. Kanchan Devi, their services were regularized immediately after completion of 8 years, therefore, there is no justification to deny regularization to the petitioner. Though the petitioner has claimed that he was having the requisite qualification for regularization of his services, but even assuming that he was not having the requisite qualification, once respondent No.1 had relaxed the educational qualification in respect of four persons as admitted in the reply, the similar benefit ought to have been extended to the petitioner, who had completed 8 years of service as on 05.10.2007. Non-regularization of service of the petitioner after completion of 8 years is clear violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, especially when in respect of the other employees, in the same organization, the relaxation in educational qualification was given. 9. No doubt, this Court could not have ordered to relax 7 the educational qualification, but once the respondents-State had relaxed the educational qualification in respect of the same set of employees earlier, the respondents-State being a model employer ought to have relaxed the same in case of the petitioner too, more particularly when after giving the directions by this Court, his services were regularized vide office order dated 30.09.2011 (Annexure P-3), subject to the condition that he should complete Training Methodology Module within one year. 10. Once the State Government had taken the policy decision to regularize the services of the contractual employees after completion of 8 years’ service as on 31.03.2008 denying the said benefit to the petitioner is arbitrary, discriminatory and unjust and as such, the respondents have to regularize the services of the petitioner after completion of 8 years of service w.e.f. 01.04.2008 with all consequential benefits. 11. Learned Additional Advocate General has vehemently argued that the petitioner has not laid challenge to the office order dated 30.09.2011, whereby his services were regularized and until and unless the said order is quashed, no relief can be granted to him. However, if the prayer made in the petition is perused, the petitioner has prayed that his services may be 8 regularized from the year 2007 instead of 2011 with all consequential benefits. This Court cannot reject the claim of the person on technical grounds being `taken by the respondents- State, especially when the respondents have admitted that the petitioner had completed 8 years regular service with 240 days in each calendar year as on 05.10.2007. His services were not regularized only for the reason that he was not eligible to be considered as on 31.12.2006 since he had not completed 8 years of service. Once the respondents have admitted in the reply that out of 12 contractual appointees, in case of four persons the educational qualification was relaxed, the petitioner being in the same organization is also entitled to the same treatment and hence, he is to be regularized w.e.f. 01.04.2008 as per policy decision dated 09.09.2008 with all consequential benefits. 12. Consequently, the present petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to regularize the services of the petitioner w.e.f. 01.04.2008 with all consequential benefits. In case, the respondents do not pay arrears on account of regularization to the petitioner within three months from today, they are held liable to pay interest @6% per annum on the arrears from today, till actual payment to him. 9 13. The petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. 18th June, 2026 ( Jiya Lal Bhardwaj ) (Kiran) Judge