2026:HHC:25114 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWPOA No.2621 of 2020 Decided on: 24 th June, 2026 ____________________________________________________________ Tej Singh ...Petitioner Versus Himachal Road Transport Corporation & Ors. ...Respondents _____________________________________________________________ Coram Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the petitioner: Mr. Mohan Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. B.N. Sharma, Advocate for respondents No.1 to 4. None for respondent No.5. Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge (Oral) By way of present petition the petitioner has prayed for the following substantive reliefs:- “i) That the impugned office order dated 27.06.2017, Annexure A-9, issued by the respondent No.1, may very kindly be quashed and set aside. ii) That the directions may kindly be issued to the respondents No.1 to 4 to reengage the applicant as a Tyreman and further directed to convert his services into contract services and further ordered to be regularized, as the same and similarly situated persons have already been regularized by the respondent corporation, in view of the policy framed by the respondent corporation, Annexure A-7, with all consequential benefits.” 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2026:HHC:25114 2. The facts as emerge from pleadings are that the petitioner was appointed as Piecemeal worker in the respondents-Corporation in the year 2003 at Divisional Workshop Jssure, District Kangra, H.P. Thereafter, due to scarcity of staff in the respondents-Corporation at Parwanoo, he was shifted to Parwanoo, where he worked till the year 2007, when again shifted and posted in Mandi and remained there till 2011. 3. It has been averred that instead of regularizing the services of the petitioner, tenders were invited by the respondents-Corporation for various types of works like, Tyre Buffing, Tyre Solution, Tyre Puncturing, Tyre Belting etc. in August, 2011 and the Piecemeal workers could have also been participated in the process and tenders were filled in by the three persons namely, Dharmender Guleria, Neel Kumar and the petitioner. The petitioner had quoted the lowest amount of all items i.e. Rs.10/-, Dharmender Guleria Rs.13/- in the application form and Neel Kumar Rs.11/-. However, respondent No.5 got the record tempered and fabricated as he was knowing that in future the services of the Piecemeal workers would be taken on contract basis and he managed to open the tender in favour of his brother 3 2026:HHC:25114 Shri Dharmender Guleria by filling up a new form through any other person or himself and filled up the rate Rs.9.95 in place of Rs.13/-. The petitioner when came to know about this fact, agitated the matter before the then Deputy Divisional Manager, but since respondent No.5 had influence in the respondents-Corporation, the grievance of the petitioner was not heard by anybody. He also raked up the matter through various channels. The petitioner had also made a complaint to the Deputy Commissioner, Mandi, regarding award of tender by respondent No.5 in favour of his relative who acting on the said complaint had got the inquiry conducted vide letter dated 28.07.2016. In the enquiry, the statement of the petitioner was recorded who did not differ from his earlier stand and so far as S/Shri Dharmender Guleria and Neel Kumar are concerned, they rejected the allegations. Their statements were recorded. It was found that no chart was prepared in the proceedings to compare the rates and further no signatures of the tenderers were taken at the time of opening the tender. As far as the allegations that signatures were forged, it was recorded that the signatures do not match, but the final opinion can be given only after the opinion by the expert, 4 2026:HHC:25114 which fact is evident from the report dated 03.11.2016 (page Nos. 25-26). However, when no action was taken despite the enquiry report, the petitioner whose services were terminated, approached the Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal (in short Tribunal) by way of O.A. No.2 of 2017, titled, Tej Singh vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation and others, which came to be disposed of on 12.01.2017, directing the respondents- Corporation to consider and decide his claim in accordance with law, after affording an opportunity of being heard. 4. The respondents-Corporation after directions given by the Tribunal, passed an office order on 27.06.2017 (Annexure A-9) and rejected the representation made by the petitioner. While rejecting the representation, it was noticed that the petitioner was initially engaged as Piecemeal worker in Divisional Workshop, Jssure w.e.f. June 2003 to 06.12.2005. Thereafter, he was shifted to BBU Parwanoo, where he worked up to 2006 and shifted to Divisional Workshop Mandi, where he worked up to 15.03.2010. On 15.03.2010, his agreement was cancelled and fresh tenders were invited on 18.03.2010, in which the petitioner being the lowest tenderer was allotted the tender 5 2026:HHC:25114 w.e.f. 26.03.2010. Thereafter, again fresh tenders were invited on 12.08.2011, in which Sh. Dharmender Kumar being the lowest tenderer was awarded the tender and thus it was held that the claim of the petitioner is not genuine. 5. The petitioner feeling aggrieved by the order dated 27.06.2017 (Annexure A-9), passed by the respondents-Corporation has challenged the same, inter- alia on the grounds that the impugned order is illegal, wrong, arbitrary, discriminatory and against the Constitutional provisions. It has been averred that the petitioner had made a representation regarding his illegal termination by accommodating Sh. Dharam Pal Guleria, who is real brother of respondent No.5, which resulted in his dis-engagement and the order has been passed in a cursory manner. While passing the impugned order, respondent No.1 has ignored the material facts and there is no whisper that other similarly situated persons have been engaged or not. 6. The respondents-Corporation filed reply to the petition and took preliminary objections that the original application is not maintainable, since the petitioner is not holding a civil post, he has no cause of action, the tender 6 2026:HHC:25114 was floated for technical jobs, against which the petitioner could not claim his right as an employee and the original application is barred by limitation. On merits, it has been averred that the petitioner was never appointed as a Tyreman on piecemeal work rather, a tender thereto was floated and against the item, he has worked. While filing the reply, there is no specific denial with respect to allotment of tender in favour of brother of respondent No.5 and also the findings given in the enquiry report that the signatures do not match and no comparative chart was prepared while allotting the tender and no signatures were taken when the tender was opened. The petitioner has specifically averred that the tenders were opened in his absence. The petitioner had levelled allegations against respondent No.5 in ground 6. (viii) (b) that his services were illegally terminated for accommodating Sh. Dharam Pal Guleria, who is real brother of respondent No.5 and in reply to this, it has been stated that the contents of these sub- paras which pertain to record are not denied, however, contrary submissions are wrong and hence denied. The averments made in the petition that the services of Dharmender Guleria, Tek Chand, son of Shri Gwanu Ram, 7 2026:HHC:25114 Tek Chand son of Shri Sagar, resident of Village Tarar, P.O. Sheguli, Tehsil Chachiot, District Mandi, were regularized as per the decision taken in meeting of the Service Committee dated 04.06.2014 has not been specifically denied. 7. Respondent No.5, against whom allegations were made by the petitioner, though served but did not choose to file reply to controvert the allegations. 8. The petitioner filed rejoinder to the reply filed by the respondents-Corporation and controverted the facts. The petitioner has also placed on record office order dated 21.03.2022 (Annexure A-10), whereby the piecemeal workers were converted into Junior Technicians on contract basis. 9. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record carefully. 10. It is crystal clear from the office order dated 27.06.2017, passed by the Managing Director of the respondents-Corporation that the petitioner was initially engaged as Piecemeal Worker in Divisional Workshop Jssure w.e.f. June 2003 to 06.12.2005. Thereafter, he was shifted to Parwanoo, where he worked in BBU Parwanoo up to 8 2026:HHC:25114 2006, when he was shifted to Divisional Workshop Mandi and worked there till 15.03.2010. On 15.03.2010, his agreement was cancelled and fresh tenders were invited on 18.03.2010. The petitioner being the lowest tenderer, was allotted the tender on 26.03.2010. However, when again fresh tenders were called on 12.08.2011, the same was allotted to one Sh. Dharmender Kumar, being the lowest tenderer. 11. From the facts mentioned above, only one thing emerges that earlier the petitioner has worked as Piecemeal worker without inviting the tenders since June, 2003 till 15.03.2010 for the reason that he was initially Piecemeal worker at Divisional Workshop Jssure, where he worked till 06.12.2005. Thereafter, he was shifted to Parwanoo firstly and then to Mandi. Thereafter, the tenders were invited and the petitioner was ousted, only for the reason that respondent No.5 wanted to engage his brother as Piecemeal worker, knowing that in future the persons, who have been engaged on Piecemeal basis will be brought on contract basis. Respondent No.5 despite service did not file reply to refute the allegations because the report itself was against him. 9 2026:HHC:25114 12. The respondents-Corporation while filing reply to the petition have denied the allegations against respondent No.5, but since these were specific, the same could have been refuted only by him. 13. The petitioner has placed on record the Minutes of the Meeting of the Service Committee of the respondents-Corporation held on 04.06.2014 (Annexure A- 7) and as per these minutes, the Piecemeal workers, who were working on daily wages/contract basis and had completed 7 years of service and were ITI pass, were to be converted as Junior Technicians and those Piecemeal workers, who were Non-ITI, their services were to be converted as Workshop Helper on daily wage basis on the rates approved by the State Government after completion of 9 years of service. 14. The respondents-Corporation, while rejecting the claim of the petitioner, have not disputed that the petitioner was engaged as Piecemeal worker in Divisional Workshop Jssure w.e.f. June 2003. It has also not been denied that the services of Dharmeder Guleria, Tek Chand, son of Shri Gwanu Ram, Tek Chand son of Shri Sagar, resident of Village Tarar, P.O. Sheguli, Tehsil Chachiot, 10 2026:HHC:25114 District Mandi, were regularized as per the decision taken in the meeting of the Service Committee dated 04.06.2014. Since Dharmeder Guleria was awarded the tender only in the year 2011, and his services have been regularized, the petitioner, being an appointee of June, 2003 as Piecemeal worker, too deserves to be regularized. The respondents- Corporation has passed an office order on 21.03.2022 to convert the Piecemeal workers into Junior Technicians on contract basis. Since the services of the petitioner have been terminated just to allot and appoint brother of respondent No.5 as Piecemeal worker, the termination is bad in law and the order dated 27.06.2017 to reject his claim for reinstatement is unsustainable in law. 15. As per order dated 27.06.2017 passed by the respondents-Corporation, the petitioner was engaged as Piecemeal worker in Divisional Workshop in June, 2003. Since he was engaged as a Piecemeal worker by the respondents-Corporation in Divisional Workshop Jssure, he was shifted to Parwanoo and thereafter to Divisional Workshop Mandi, H.P. Thereafter, to engage Shri Dharmender Guleria as Piecemeal worker, brother of respondent No.5 invited tenders just to oust the petitioner 11 2026:HHC:25114 from service. In the tender, the petitioner had quoted the lowest rates, but respondent No.5 with a view to allot the tender in favour of his brother manipulated the documents and awarded the tender in his favour whose services were lateron regularized. 16. The petitioner has been unnecessarily harassed. The petitioner had raked up the issue before the Tribunal against his termination and the Tribunal had passed the order on 12.01.2017, when direction was given to decide his representation, which came to be rejected on 27.06.2017. When the petitioner had earlier filed the original application and direction was given to the respondents-Corporation to consider and decide the representation, which came to be decided on 27.06.2017, the plea taken by the respondents-Corporation that the original application is barred by limitation is not sustainable for the reason that he immediately after rejection of his claim had preferred the original application on 04.08.2017, which has now been registered as present petition. 17. The plea taken by the respondents-Corporation that the petition is not maintainable since the petitioner is not holding a civil post and further he has no cause of 12 2026:HHC:25114 action is also rejected for the reason that this Court has the jurisdiction to see the legality of the order dated 27.06.2017, passed by the respondents-Corporation. 18. Since the petitioner had not raked up the issue immediately after terminating his services in the year 2011 and filed the original application in 2017, he is not entitled to any monetary benefit of the period when he has not served with the respondents-Corporation from 2011 to 2017. However, keeping in view the policy decision taken by the respondents-Corporation dated 04.06.2014, coupled with the fact that the respondents-Corporation has regularized the services of Dharmender Guleria and now passed an order on 21.03.2022 (Annexure A-10) to convert the Piecemeal workers to Junior Technician on contract basis, the petitioner is entitled to be reinstated in service and further his claim be also considered for regularization from the date of regularizing the services of Shri Dharmender Guleria. 19. Consequently, the present petition is allowed and the office order dated 27.06.2017 (Annexure A-9) is quashed and set aside with a direction to the respondents- Corporation to reinstate the petitioner in service as 13 2026:HHC:25114 Piecemeal worker and thereafter convert his services on contract basis in terms of the policy decision dated 04.06.2014 and regularize his services on the analogy of the orders passed in other cases such as Dharmender Guleria, considering his date of appointment as June 2003. The petitioner is, however, entitled to seniority only from the initial date of his engagement for the purpose of converting his services on contract basis and thereafter regularization and no financial benefits. In case, the petitioner is not reinstated in service within a period of 3 months from today and further his services are not converted on the analogy of the policy decision dated 04.06.2014, firstly on contract basis and thereafter on regular basis on the analogy of Dharmender Guleria, the respondents-Corporation shall pay the salary to the petitioner from today and further interest on the salary @6% per annum till actual payment. 20. The petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. 24 th June, 2026 ( Jiya Lal Bhardwaj ) (ankit) Judge