2026:HHC:26106 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWPOA No.7840 of 2019 Decided on: 01.07.2026 Bidhi Chand ...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and another ...Respondents Coram Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the petitioner: Mr. Parav Sharma, Mr. Shekhar Badola and Mr. Avnish Mandhotra, Advocates. For the respondents: Mr. Hemant Kumar Verma, Deputy Advocate General. Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge (Oral) The petitioner by way of present petition has prayed for the following substantive reliefs:- “(i) That the respondents may kindly be directed to regularize the services of the applicant with effect from due date of completion of eight years of daily wage services with all consequential benefits and the arrears having been accrued in his favour, may kindly be released in his favour with interest. (ii) That the respondents may kindly be directed to count the period of services rendered by the applicant in Forest Nursery, Jhanekhar undder Forest Block and Range, Aghar, Forest Division, Hamirpur, during the years 2005, 2006 and 2007 for the purpose of manday’s and the fractional 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2026:HHC:26106 breaks given to the applicant during the years 2005, 2006 and 2007 may kindly be ordered to be counted in the manday’s for the purpose of regularization” 2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts as emerge from the pleadings are that the petitioner was engaged on daily wage basis in the year 1999, with the respondents-State. As per the manday’s chart placed on record, the petitioner had completed 240 days in each calendar year from the year 2002 to 2004 and thereafter, served for 158 days in the year 2005, 230 days in the year 2006 and 102 days in the year 2007, respectively. The petitioner completed more than 240 days in each calendar year from the year 2008 till 2015 and his services were disengaged on 29.02.2016. It has been averred in the petition that in the year 2005, the petitioner was shifted to Forest Nurseries and earlier to that he was working in the Forest Rest House, Bhareri, District Hamirpur (HP). From January 2005 to August 2005, January 2006 to August 2006 and January 2007 to August 2007, he worked with the respondents-State in Forest Nursery, Bhareri under Forest Block, Bhareri and from September 2005 to December 2005, September 2006 to December 2006 and September 2007 to December 2007, he worked in Forest Nursery 3 2026:HHC:26106 Jhanekhar under Forest Block and Range, Aghar, District Hamirpur, HP. During the year, 2007 on certain occassions, he was made to work in Forest Rest House, Bhareri. It has further been averred that the work in Bhareri Nursery was seasonal, while Jhanekhar Nursery, the work was annual/permanent in nature, despite having worked with both Nurseries as also in the Forest Rest House, the respondents have arbitrarily ignored to count his services rendered in Forest Nursery, Jhanekhar. It has also been averred in the petition that he continuously worked for more than 240 days in each calendar year during the years 2005, 2006 and 2007, respectively and he was also paid during the period he had worked. Certain payments have been made to him on muster-roll and some payments on bills. The other employees who were engaged during the relevant time at Jhanekhar when the petitioner was engaged, they were Joginder, Raj Kumar etc. During his posting at Jhanekhar, he was allotted official accommodation of the Forest Department at Jhanekhar. The mandays of the petitioner at Bhareri Nursery have been counted, but the mandays at Jhanekhar Nursery have been ignored and as such his manday’s have been shown much lower side 4 2026:HHC:26106 during 2005, 2006 and 2007. It has further been averred that the petitioner had rendered 17 years of service with the respondents-State. The petitioner is entitled to regularization of his services by taking into account his services w.e.f. 20.06.1999, since he had completed 8 years of daily wage service as on 20.06.2007. It has further been averred that non-regularization after 8 years’ service has caused huge financial loss to him and the petitioner has been sent home without any penny. 3. The respondents-State filed reply to the petition and averred that the petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable on facts and law. He was engaged on daily wages on the basis of need of the work during July, 1999, purely on temporary basis and was liable to work whatever entrusted to him. The petitioner could not complete minimum 240 days in each calendar year during the years 2005, 2006 & 2007, respectively and as such, he is not eligible for regularization as per policy of the Government. The services of the petitioner were dis-engaged on attaining the age of 60 years as per Government instructions on daily wages. It has been categorically denied that the respondents have arbitrarily ignored to count service of the 5 2026:HHC:26106 petitioner in Jhanekhar Nursery. It has also been denied that the respondents had made payments to petitioner either through muster-roll or through bills. It has further been averred in the reply that as per school leaving certificate (Annexure R-2), the date of birth of the petitioner is 01.03.1956 and the retirement age of all the Government employees is 58 years, which was crossed by him on 28.02.2014, while he had completed 8 years of continuous daily wage services on 31.12.2015, hence he is not entitled for regularization. 4. The petitioner filed rejoinder to the reply and has placed on record reply to RTI information dated 30.06.2016 supplied to him, wherein it has been mentioned that the entire record up to 31.03.2010 has been destroyed as per office order dated 19.01.2015. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record carefully. 6. A perusal of the mandays chart placed on record by the respondents as Annexure R-1 shows that the petitioner had completed 240 days in each calendar year since 2000 to 2015, except for the years 2005, 2006 and 2007. During the year 2005, the petitioner had completed 6 2026:HHC:26106 158 days, in the year 2006, 230 days and in the year 2007, 102 days. It is not the case of the respondents that the petitioner had not turned up for performing his duties during these years. The respondents have neither pleaded that they do not have the work during these years nor they have placed on record any document to suggest that when the petitioner was asked to perform his duties, he did not turn up. It is also not the case that he had remained absent without any leave. No doubt the petitioner has not placed on record any material that he had completed 240 days during these three years i.e. from 2005 to 2007, but being a daily wager, he could not have any data available with him to buttress his submission. However, the Court cannot even ignore the fact that prior to 2005, the petitioner had completed more than 240 days in each calendar year and also after 2007. For ready reference the mandays chart as contained in Annexure R-1 is reproduced hereinbelow:- Seniority list of Sh. Bidhi Chand s/o Sh. Ami Chand V.P.O. Amroh the. Bhoranj distt. Hamirpur beat & block Bhoranj Aghar range division Hamirpur for the year 1999up to 2016 YEAR JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUNE JULY AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC TOTAL DAYS REMARKS 1999 11 31 30 31 30 31 164 2000 31 29 31 30 31 30 31 31 25 31 30 31 361 7 2026:HHC:26106 2001 31 28 31 30 31 30 31 31 30 31 30 31 365 2002 31 28 31 30 31 30 31 31 30 27 30 31 361 2003 31 28 31 30 31 30 31 31 30 31 30 31 365 2004 31 29 31 30 31 30 31 31 30 31 30 31 366 2005 31 28 31 30 - - - - - 21 23 21 158 2006 27 17 26 20 29 30 31 20 - - 10 20 230 2007 20 - - 10 20 11 31 10 - - - - 102 2008 14 29 31 16 31 30 17 24 11 21 15 19 258 2009 29 26 31 30 31 30 31 31 15 - - - 254 2010 23 24 30 30 31 30 31 27 - 30 30 31 317 2011 31 28 31 30 31 30 30 27 05 31 30 31 335 2012 31 29 31 30 31 30 31 31 30 31 30 31 366 2013 31 28 31 30 31 30 31 31 30 31 30 31 365 2014 31 28 31 30 31 30 31 31 30 31 30 31 365 2015 31 28 31 30 31 30 30 31 30 31 30 31 364 2016 31 29 - - - - - - - - - - 60 7. A perusal of the mandays chart reveals that the petitioner had served for 361 days in the year 2000, 365 days in the year 2001, 361 days in the year 2002, 365 days in the year 2003 and 366 days in the year 2004. If the petitioner was serving continuously, it cannot be believed that he did not serve more than 240 days in each calendar year during the years 2005, 2006 and 2007. In case the petitioner was not turning up during these years, the respondents at least ought to have issued the notice calling upon him to render his services and the respondents have not placed on record any material that the petitioner was ever asked as to why did he not turn up to serve the respondent-Department. The only plea, which has been 8 2026:HHC:26106 taken by the respondents in the reply, is that the petitioner has never worked in Forest Nursery Bhareri, Forest Nursery Jhanekhar as well as in Forest Rest House, Bhareri, continuously i.e. without break for 240 days or more than 240 days in each calendar year during the years 2005, 2006 and 2007. A perusal of the above mandays chart also reveals that the petitioner from the year 2008 onwards had completed 240 days in each calendar year. In the year 2010, he has served for 317 days, in the year 2011 for 335 days, in the year 2012 for 366 days, in the year 2013 for 365 days, in the year 2014 for 365 days and in the year 2015 for 364 days. 8. From the manday’s chart as reproduced above, it is crystal clear that the petitioner may have also discharged his duties for more than 240 days in each calendar year during the years 2005 to 2007 since the respondents-State has not taken the plea that he had abandoned the work during these years or they do not had the requisite funds. The respondents have also not denied that the petitioner was allotted official accommodation of Forest Department at Jhanekhar during his posting in the years 2005, 2006 and 2007. This shows that he have served for more than 240 9 2026:HHC:26106 days during the years 2005, 2006 & 2007 and his days from September to December during the years 2005, 2006 & 2007 have not been counted, when he served at Forest Nursery Jhanekhar. 9. It is relevant to note here that the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in CWPOA No.7438 of 2020, titled, Gopal Singh vs. State of HP & others, along with connected petitions, decided on 22.08.2024, directed the respondents to condone the break period in service from the initial date of appointments of the petitioners till the year they were allowed to complete 240 days in each calendar year and count their service from the initial date of engagement for continuity in service, seniority and confirming the work charge status/regularization of service from the date of completion of 8 years’ service with effect from their initial appointment along with consequential benefits. The relevant paras of the judgment are reproduced hereinunder:- “6 Though it has been claimed by Departments that petitioners themselves worked intermittently from their initial appointments till the years since when they completed 240 days in each calender year but to substantiate such stand nothing has been placed on record. It is not a case of Departments that no work was available and despite issuing notice or calling upon by the Departments, petitioners did not join their duty as daily wagers. There is nothing on record to indicate that at any 10 2026:HHC:26106 point of time, any action was ever taken by Departments against the petitioners asking them to join the duty despite availability of work and funds. 7 Respondents-Departments have not placed on record any material, including Muster Rolls etc. of the relevant period during which, according to Departments, petitioner(s) intermittently absented from the work at their own, to establish their claim that petitioner(s), despite availability of work, did not attend the work. It is not case of the respondents-Departments that work was not available and, therefore, petitioner(s) were not engaged or remained absent, rather it is claim of the Departments that petitioner(s), at their own absented from duty. The said fact could have been established by the Departments by placing on record relevant material, including Muster Roll, indicating absence of the petitioner(s) but availability of work as well as presence of others who were allowed to continue to work during those days. 8 In view of above, stand of Departments that petitioners themselves did not attend the work during initial years of their engagement appears to be an afterthought to justify the artificial breaks given to petitioners to avoid financial liability for which otherwise petitioners would have been entitled for working 240 days in each calendar year during their initial years. 9 It has been contended by learned counsel for petitioner(s) that issue involved in present case is squarely covered by judgment dated 30th August, 2017 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in LPA No. 645 of 2011 titled as State of HP vs. Keshav Ram; judgment dated 14th December, 2009 passed in CWP No. 4489 of 2009 titled Ravi Kumar vs. State of HP; judgment dated 10.05.2018 passed in CWP No. 3111 of 2016 titled State of HP vs. Ashwani Kumar and also judgment dated 28.11.2023 passed in CWPOA No. 6089 of 2020 titled Dharam Chand vs. State of HP. 10 Upholding the order passed by the erstwhile H.P. State Administrative Tribunal, a Division Bench of this Court, vide judgment dated 10.5.2018, in CWP No.3111 of 2016, titled as State of Himachal Pradesh v. Ashwani Kumar, has pronounced that work-charged establishment is not a pre-requisite for conferment of work-charged status nor conversion of workcharged employee into regular employee would make such establishment non- existent. 11 2026:HHC:26106 11 to 22 xxxxxxxxxxxx 23 In CWP No.4489 of 2009, titled as Ravi Kumar v. State of H.P, decided on 14.12.2009, a similar view has been taken by a Division Bench of this High Court. 24 By relying upon Mohd. Abdul Kadir’s [(2009)6 SCC 11] Keshav Ram’s (CWP No.3111 of 2016) and Ashwani Kumar’s cases, similar period of artificial breaks during few years, after initial appointment of the petitioner, was also directed to be condoned by a Division Bench of this High Court in CWPOA 6089 of 2020, titled as Dharam Chand v. H.P. State and others, decided on 28.11.2023. 25 to 44 xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 45 In this petition, petitioner has prayed to direct the respondents to extend the benefits of service from initial engagement after condoning the artificial breaks given to him by conferring regularization/work charge status upon the petitioner along with consequential benefits from 01.01.2011. The mandays chart of petitioner Tej Mal is as under:- Years Mandays 2003 95 2004 170 2005 170 2006 165 2007 228 2008 364 2009 358 2010 357 2011 360 46 The artificial breaks given to the petitioner(s) are as under:- Sr. No. Name CWPOA Number Years Days 1 Gopal Singh vs. State of HP 7438 of 2020 1997 148 1998 150 12 2026:HHC:26106 2 Alam Chand vs. State 7509 of 2020 1994 160 1995 182 1996 228 3 Mohinder Singh vs. State 7513 of 2020 1997 172 1998 153 4 Tilak Ram vs. State 7517 of 2020 1998 75 5 Yugal Kishore vs. State 7518 of 2020 1997 146 1998 146 6 Baldev Singh vs. State 7519 of 2020 1996 76 1996 181 1997 163 7 Tek Chand vs. State 7538 of 2020 1995 119 8 Chhaju Ram vs. State 7505 of 2020 1992 88 1993 26 1994 27 1995 24 9 Karam Chand vs. State 7574 of 2020 1999 101 2000 212 13 2026:HHC:26106 2001 183 2002 166 2003 169 2004 168 2005 167 2006 171 2007 208 10 Tej Mal vs. State 7577 of 2020 2003 95 2004 170 2005 170 2006 165 2007 228 47 Undoubtedly, issues involved and pleadings in present matters are similar to the cases in Keshav Ram, Ashwani Kumar, Dharam Chand and Ravi Kumar’s cases, referred supra, therefore, reasoning assigned in those judgments for allowing the petitions, are also applicable mutatis mutandis for all intents and purposes in the present matters, as also submitted and admitted by learned counsel for petitioner(s) and the learned Deputy Advocate General. 48 Accordingly, in view of aforesaid discussion, respondents are directed to condone all respective break period of petitioners with effect from their initial appointment till the year they were allowed to complete 240 days in each calendar year and count their service from the initial date of engagement for continuity in service, seniority and confirming the work charge status/regularization of service from the date of completion of 8 years with effect from their initial appointment along with consequential benefits. The amount, if already paid, shall be adjusted against the arrears payable to petitioner. Petitions stand disposed of accordingly including all pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.” 14 2026:HHC:26106 10. The Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in the aforementioned pronouncement, has held that it is not a case of the Departments that no work was available and despite issuing notice or calling upon by the Departments, the petitioners did not join their duty as daily wager and, therefore, it cannot be construed that the petitioners had not completed 240 days in each calendar year and thus, directed to condone all respective break period of the petitioners with effect from their initial appointments till the year they were allowed to complete 240 days and count their service from the initial date of engagement for continuity in service, seniority and conferring the work charge status/regularization of service from the date of completion of 8 years with all consequential benefits. 11. In the present case, also as noticed above, no tangible material has been placed on record by the respondents that the petitioner did not turn up for duties or when they had issued notice to him. It is also not the case of the respondents that they were not having the funds during the relevant period, when the petitioner did not complete 240 days in each calendar year. 12. Keeping in view the above facts, it cannot be 15 2026:HHC:26106 construed that the petitioner did not complete 240 days in the years 2005, 2006 and 2007 and, as such, even if it is assumed that the petitioner had rendered less than 240 days of service in the aforesaid years, the break in service is liable to be condoned, and the respondents shall consider the petitioner as having completed 240 days of service during those years as well. This is in view of the fact that, prior thereto, the petitioner had rendered more than 360 days of service from 2010 to 2014 and, thereafter, again completed 240 days of service from 2008 onwards till 2015. Further, during the years 2012 to 2015, the petitioner served throughout the entire year without even a single day’s break in service. 13. Consequently, the present petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to condone the break period of service of the petitioner during the years 2005 to 2007 and consider his appointment from the year 2000 and thereafter confer upon him the work charge status/regularization of his service from the date of completion of 8 years i.e. 01.01.2008 along with all consequential benefits till the attainment of 60 years of age. The respondents are further directed to pay the arrears and pension to the petitioner 16 2026:HHC:26106 since he will complete 8 years of regular service till his date of retirement as on 29.02.2016 and other service benefits within three months from today. No order as to costs. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. 01 st July , 2026 ( Jiya Lal Bhardwaj ) (Anurag) Judge