2026:HHC:26744 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWPOA No.7502 of 2019 Decided on : 03 rd July, 2026 ____________________________________________________________________ Sanjeev Kumar ...Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others ...Respondents _____________________________________________________________________ Coram Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the petitioner: Mr. Ashwani Sharma II, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Hemant Kumar Verma, Deputy Advocate General. Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge By way of present petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following substantive relief:- “That the respondent authorities may kindly be directed to regularize the services of the applicant after completion of six years of services in consonance with regularization policy formulated by the Department of Personnel from retrospective effect with all consequential benefits or in alternate his service be directed to be regularized with retrospective effect in consonance with similarly circumstances Junior Engineers with seniority, arrears of salary and other consequential benefit arising therefrom.” 2. Shorn of unnecessary details, key facts of the case 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 are that the petitioner was appointed as Junior Engineer vide appointment letter dated 12.02.2009 (Annexure A-1). The respondents-State issued the instructions dated 07.05.2015 (Annexure A-6), whereby a decision was taken to regularize the services of the contractual appointees after completion of 5 years of service as on 31.03.2015, provided that they have been engaged, as such, after observing all codal formalities. The said instructions dated 07.05.2015 were adopted by respondent No.2, with whom the petitioner was discharging his duties. Though, the petitioner had completed 5 years of service as on 31.03.2015, but his services were not regularized in terms of the policy decision dated 07.05.2015. 3. It has been averred in the petition that that the services of the petitioner were not regularized after completion of 5 years’ service in terms of the policy decision dated 07.05.2015 and the persons who were similarly situate were regularized in the month of March 2016. Thus, the action on the part of the respondents is discriminatory and arbitrary. 3 4. It has also been averred in the petition that once the petitioner was appointed after adopting the proper procedure against the sanctioned and vacant post pursuant to the advertisement and he had discharged the same and similar duties as discharged by other similarly situate persons, the non-regularization of his services is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and thus, has prayed for direction to the respondents to regularize his services in terms of the policy decision dated 07.05.2015. 5. Respondents No.1 to 4 and 6 filed joint reply to the petition and averred that a scheme was notified on 10.04.2008 with an objective to ensure quality and cost effectiveness in the construction of civil works being executed by the Panchayati Raj Institutions. Under this scheme, the posts of Junior Engineers were to be filled up on contract basis through Panchayat Samiti on a monthly remuneration of Rs.8700/-. 6. In the year 2015, it was decided by the State Government that the services of those contract employees 4 were to be regularized, who have successfully completed 6 years of service on 31.03.2015, provided that they have been engaged after observing all codal formalities. In the year 2016, it was decided by the State Government that the services of those contract employees were to be regularized, who have successfully completed 5 years of service on 31.03.2016. Then again in the year 2017, it was decided that the services of those contract employees were to be regularized who have successfully completed 3 years of service on 31.03.2017 and 30.09.2017. 7. It has further been averred that the petitioner remained on leave of about 651 days, which was sanctioned in his favour w.e.f. 2015 to 2017 on the basis of medical as well as without medical, sympathetically. However, the petitioner was entitled for 12 days casual leave. The matter regarding regularization of the petitioner is under active consideration. 8. Respondents No.3 and 4 have filed separate reply raising preliminary objection that the original application is 5 not maintainable against respondents No.3 and 4, as they have no role to play in the process of regularization. It has further been averred that the Department of Panchayati Raj, Government of Himachal Pradesh had directed all District Panchayat Officer-cum-Secretary, Zila Parishad, Himachal Pradesh to forward the names of contractual Junior Engineers, who had completed 5 years of services on 31.03.2015, which was accordingly complied with and said list also included the name of the petitioner. Thereafter, the Department of Panchayati Raj constituted a Screening Committee for regularization of Junior Engineers, who had completed 5 years of services on 31.03.2015 vide letter dated 15.09.2015, but the concerned Block Development Officer (in short BDO) did not send the work and conduct certificate in respect of the petitioner and in the absence of which, it was not possible to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization. The work and conduct certificate of the petitioner was not issued by the BDO as the petitioner had failed in renewing his contract from time to time and he was 6 also not regular in his work even though he had been issued show cause notices. 9. The petitioner filed rejoinders to the replies filed by the respondents and controverted the facts. 10. This Court vide order dated 26.11.2025 had directed the respondents-State to file an affidavit to indicate as to what is the period of absence and what was the deficiency in work and conduct, which led to non- regularization of the petitioner. In pursuance of the directions issued by this Court, the respondents-State filed supplementary affidavit dated 18.12.2025 and stated that the petitioner was not regular in his work and was served show cause notices dated 02.01.2010, 30.06.2012, 12.09.2012, 29.09.2012, 24.01.2013, 20.05.2013 and 22.06.2013 by the respective BDOs, under whom he had served and accordingly, he was unable to issue work and conduct certificate in favour of the petitioner. 11. The period of absence was reflected in the affidavit w.e.f. 28.07.2015 to 31.10.2017. Nothing has been 7 said in the affidavit as to what action was taken against the petitioner after the show cause notices issued to him. It has been submitted that the petitioner had submitted medical certificates. 12. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record carefully. 13. The respondents have not disputed the instructions dated 07.05.2015, issued by the State Government, whereby a policy decision was taken to regularize the services of the contractual appointees after completion of 5 years of service as on 31.03.2015. It is also not in dispute that respondent No.2 had issued the instructions to the Chief Executive Officer-cum-Additional Deputy Commissioner, Himachal Pradesh to take steps for regularization of the services of the employees, who were working with it. It has also not come on record that the respondents though had issued various show cause notices to the petitioner, but no action was taken against him. It is also not in dispute that when the petitioner was engaged, he 8 was engaged after adopting the proper procedure and against the sanctioned and vacant post. So far as the period of absence is concerned, the same is after 28.07.2015 till 31.10.2017. 14. It is not the stand of the respondents that the petitioner had not completed 5 years of service as on 31.03.2015 and he did not fulfill the requirements in terms of the policy decision dated 07.05.2015. In case, the petitioner had not executed the contract as per the stand taken by the respondents, what action was taken by them, is not coming forth. Moreover, it was for the respondents to ask the petitioner to execute the contract after expiry of 2 years. Since, nothing has been placed on record to show that the respondents had asked the petitioner to execute the contract and he declined to do the same, the benefit of the policy decision taken by the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioner after completion of 5 years of service cannot be denied to him. The petitioner is still serving with the respondents and, therefore, he cannot be denied the benefit 9 of regularization in terms of the policy dated 07.05.2015. 15. Learned Deputy Advocate General has vehemently argued that since the petitioner was not regular in service, therefore, his services could not be regularized, cannot be accepted for the reason that as per the decision taken by the State Government, the Department of Panchayati Raj, Government of Himachal Pradesh, had directed all the District Panchayat Officer-cum-Secretary, Zila Parishad, Himachal Pradesh, to forward the names of contractual Junior Engineers, who had completed 5 years of services on 31.03.2015, which was accordingly complied with and in the list forwarded, the name of the petitioner was also included. Once, the respondents had included the name of the petitioner and further the Screening Committee was also constituted, in case the concerned BDO did not send the work and conduct certificate of the petitioner, the petitioner cannot be penalized for the same. 16. It is not even the case of the respondents that the petitioner is not serving with them. As per the reply which 10 was filed by respondents No.1 to 4 and 6 on 04.10.2021, duly supported by an affidavit of Joint Secretary, Panchayati Raj to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, it has been stated that the case of the petitioner for regularization is under consideration. Once, the petitioner had completed 5 years of service as on 31.03.2015 and no action was taken against him though he was issued various show cause notices, the respondents now cannot take the shelter under the show cause notices issued to the petitioner for not regularizing his services after completion of 5 years of services as on 31.03.2015. 17. The respondents have not disputed the fact that the petitioner was appointed after following the proper procedure against the sanctioned and vacant post. The respondents have also not disputed regularization of the service of other persons, who were appointed along with the petitioner. Once, the persons, who were appointed with the petitioner, were regularized, the petitioner, who had completed 5 years of service as on 31.03.2015, cannot be 11 denied the benefit of the regularization policy, and such action on the part of the respondents is illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and also violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 18. Consequently, the present petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to regularize the services of the petitioner w.e.f. 01.04.2015 with all consequential benefits. In case, the arrears on account of regularization are not paid to the petitioner within a period of 3 months from today, he shall be entitled to interest @6% per annum on the arrears from today till actual payment to him. No order as to costs. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. 03 rd July, 2026 ( Jiya Lal Bhardwaj ) (ankit) Judge