2026:HHC:28535 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWPOA No.3258 of 2020 Decided on: 13.07.2026 Dr. Davinder Pal Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and another ...Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 ________________________________________________________________________ For the petitioner: Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sparsh Bhushan, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Rupinder Singh Thakur, Additional Advocate General for respondent No.1. Mr. Mukul Sood, Advocate for respondent No.2. Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge (Oral) The petitioner by way of present petition has sought directions to the respondents to regularize his services as Project Coordinator w.e.f. 01.04.2007 with all consequential benefits. 2. The facts as emerge from the pleadings are that the petitioner was initially engaged on daily wage basis as Programme Coordinator on 01.01.1999 on lump-sum salary of Rs.5,000/-. After a period of three months, his services 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 were brought on contract basis w.e.f. 01.04.1999. Thereafter, periodically the fixed emoluments of the petitioner were increased, however, despite the Government making the Notification that the person on contract basic would be paid minimum of the basic pay with dearness allowance, he was not paid the same. It has been averred that respondent No.2- Corporation has followed all the Notifications and policies of the State Government, however, after completion of eight years’ services by the petitioner, his services were not regularized, despite making many representations by him. It has further been averred that respondent No.1 had accorded approval and granted no objection with respect to creation of various posts, including the post held by the petitioner on 22.03.2010. Once the posts were created, the respondents were to regularize the services of the petitioner from retrospective date, when the petitioner had completed eight years continuous service in terms of the policy of the State Government, but respondent No.2-Corporation regularized his services as Project Coordinator vide Notification dated 15.09.2010 i.e. from the prospective date. It has also been 3 averred that the petitioner had made a representation to regularize his services w.e.f. 01.04.2007, when he became eligible and non-consideration of his claim to regularize his services is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. It has further been averred that all the contract employees were paid on the pattern fixed by the State Government. However, the respondents, in case of the petitioner paid him on lump-sum salary and thus he has prayed to regularize his services as Project Coordinator w.e.f. 01.04.2007 with all consequential benefits. 3. Respondent No.2-Corporation filed reply to the petition and averred that the petitioner was initially engaged as Programme Coordinator under Integrated Solid Waste Management Project for a period of three months on 89 days basis in the first instance at a fixed monthly emoluments of Rs.5,000/- on contract basis, vide order dated 26.12.1998. He worked as such till 30.03.1999 and thereafter he was engaged as Programme Coordinator for one year w.e.f. 01.04.1999 to 31.03.2000 in the Solid Waste Management Project on contract basis. The contract period of the petitioner was 4 extended from time to time and his services were regularized on completion of eight years’ service rendered up to 21.04.2007 after getting the post of Project Coordinator sanctioned from the State Government. The approval was accorded by the Additional Chief Secretary, Urban Development to the Government of Himachal Pradesh vide letter dated 22.03.2010 and services of the petitioner were regularized in the pay band of Rs.10300-34800+5000 Grade Pay vide order dated 15.09.2010 (Annexure A-1). It has been averred that the petitioner is not entitled for regularization w.e.f. 01.04.2007. As per policy of the State Government, the availability of sanctioned post is the pre-requisite criteria for effecting regularization and accordingly the regularization depends upon the vacancy position and eligibility criteria prescribed for the post. Since the post of Project Coordinator was sanctioned for the first time by the State Government being the competent authority in the year 2010, which was conveyed vide letter dated 22.03.2010, therefore, the case of the petitioner has been considered for regularization to the post of Project Coordinator vide letter dated 15.09.2010 and 5 thus he has no grievance and he cannot claim regularization w.e.f. 01.04.2007. 4. This Court on 02.12.2024 after noticing the submissions made by learned senior counsel representing the petitioner, that the petitioner(s) is similarly placed to the petitioner in judgment dated 29.05.2024 passed in LPA No.78/2021, titled, Municipal Corporation Shimla vs. State of H.P and Ors., wherein, the Sanitary Inspectors were granted regularization from due date after completion of eight years of continuous service, notwithstanding the creation of posts and further a reliance placed on another order dated 28.06.2017, originated from T.A. No.4141/2015, titled, Roop Chand versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others, relating to the category of Junior Engineers had directed respondent No.2-Corporation to file an affidavit. Respondent No.2- Corporation has filed affidavit dated 27.04.2025, wherein, it has been averred that the petitioner was initially appointed as Programme Coordinator (subsequently renamed as Project Coordinator) on contract basis @Rs.5,000/- per month vide order dated 29.12.1998, which was further 6 renewed/extended. It has further been averred that there was no sanctioned post of Project Coordinator in Municipal Corporation Shimla. However, after completion of contractual service, the matter of creation of personal post of Project Coordinator in respondent No.2-Corporation was taken up with the Government, vide letter dated 15.05.2007 and approval for the same was accorded vide letter dated 22.03.2010 and accordingly services of the petitioner were regularized, vide order dated 15.09.2010. It has further been averred that the case of the petitioner is not similar to the case of the petitioners namely, Sh. Ram Singh and Sh. Bharat Bhushan in LPA No.78 of 2021. Sh. Ram Singh and Sh. Bharat Bhushan were appointed as Sanitary Inspectors on contract basis in the year 1997 in respondent No.2-Corporation. However, the cadre of Male Health Supervisor (subsequently renamed as Sanitary Inspector) was merged with the Health Department, Government of Himachal Pradesh, vide Notification dated 28.01.1988 and the posts remained with respondent No.2-Corporation to be filled up by the Health Department. Since the Health Department had expressed its 7 inability to deploy the incumbents due to shortage of staff with them and did not deploy incumbents against these posts for a long time, it had issued necessary NOC for filling up these posts at the level of respondent No.2-Corporation. Therefore, in view of the public exigency, S/Sh. Ram Singh and Bharat Bhushan were engaged on contract basis as Sanitary Inspectors w.e.f. 27.05.1997 and 08.08.1997 respectively against the available posts of Sanitary Inspector in respondent No.2-Corporation, irrespective of the fact that the cadre was in existence or not. It has further been averred that the case of the petitioner is not similar to the case of the petitioner namely, Sh. Roop Chand in T.A No.4141 of 2015. Though, he was appointed as Mazdoor, yet he performed the duties of Draughtsman in respondent No.2-Corporation. The cadre of Draughtsman/Head Draughtsman/Circle Head Draughtsman was not in existence in respondent No.2- Corporation and these posts were to be filled up by HPPWD on secondment basis. Further, in compliance with the judgment passed in T.A No.4141 of 2015, titled, Roop Chand vs. State of H.P and others and in pursuance of approval 8 accorded by the Principal Secretary (UD) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, two posts of Junior Draughtsman were created by upgrading the existing posts of Mazdoor against which the petitioners were working as a measure personal to them and accordingly, their services were regularized as Junior Draughtsman w.e.f. 01.04.2004 on completion of requisite number of years of daily wage service counting from 25.11.1995. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record carefully. 6. It is not in dispute that the petitioner had completed eight years of service as on 31.03.2007, counting the date of his appointment w.e.f. 01.04.1999. Though, respondent No.2-Corporation has tried to distinguish the case of the petitioner with the cases referred to above and also in the order dated 22.12.2024 passed by the Court, yet the case of the petitioner is similar to the case of the employees referred in the judgment passed by this Court in LPA No.115 of 2021 along with LPA No.78 of 2021. In the case of Sanitary Inspectors, this Court had specifically taken note of the reply 9 filed by respondent No.2-Corporation, wherein it had mentioned that the services of the petitioners could not be regularized upon completion of eight years of service for the reason that no post of Sanitary Inspector was existing in the Corporation, as on the date, when the petitioners completed eight years of contract service. Once the Court by taking note of the fact that no post of Sanitary Inspector was existing in respondent No.2-Corporation, had given directions to regularize their services after completion of eight years’ service, the petitioner, who is similarly situate, cannot be denied the benefits of the said judgment, once respondent No.2-Corporation has implemented the same. So far as the case of Roop Chand is concerned, admittedly, there was no post existing of Junior Draughtsman in respondent No.2- Corporation, however, despite that, the post was created and thereafter the services of Roop Chand, who was initially appointed as Mazdoor were regularized on the post of Junior Draughtsman after completion of eight years of service w.e.f. 01.04.2004. Once the petitioner is similarly situate, he cannot be denied the benefits of the judgment passed by the Division 10 Bench of this Court in the aforementioned LPAs. It is relevant to mention here that the Division Bench of this Court in the aforementioned appeals had taken note of the fact that the post was not in existence in the case of Sanitary Inspectors. The relevant paras of the judgment read as under:- “11. It is averred that the services of the petitioners could not be regularized upon completion of eight years of services for the reason that no post of Sanitary Inspector was existing in the Corporation, as on the date when petitioners completed eight years of service on contract basis. 12. Learned writ court allowed the first prayer and directed services of the petitioners to be regularized against the post of Sanitary Inspector from the date of completion of eight years’ service on contract basis with all consequential benefits. However, monetary benefits were restricted to three years prior to filing of the transfer application. It shall be apt to reproduce para 10 of the judgment, which reads as under:- “10. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed, with the direction that the services of the petitioners are ordered to be regularized against the post of Sanitary Inspector as from the date of completion of eight years’ service, with all consequential benefits. However, the actual financial benefit will be restricted to three years prior to filing of the transfer application. In the event of the arrears being paid within a period of six months, the same shall not 11 entail any interest. If the arrears are not paid within a period of six months as from the date of pronouncement of the judgment, the same shall entail simple interest at the rate of 6% as from the date of pronouncement of the judgment. Petition stands disposed of, so also, pending miscellaneous applications, if any. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.” 28. The Corporation or the State cannot be permitted to exploit the petitioners by keeping them on contract basis for more than a decade given the fact that it was the State itself that has notified its policies from time to time providing for regularization of not only its daily waged, contractual, but even part time employees, thus, such benefit cannot, therefore, legitimately be denied to the petitioners. 31. Continuing an employee on contract for long years, not following pay parity or not regularizing their services, would not be to the satisfaction of the theme and spirit of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 41. The learned writ court was further informed that the directions so passed have been implemented by the Corporation by regularizing services of Roop Chand from retrospective effect on completion of eight years of service from the date of initial engagement on contract basis in terms of the policy of regularization of the State Government by restricting the arrears admissible post re-fixation of pay to three years prior to the date of filing of the petition.” 7. It is apt to note that once the petitioner had made representation to regularize his services w.e.f. 01.04.2007 and 12 respondent No.2-Corporation had also taken steps by writing to the Government, vide letter dated 15.05.2007, to create the post of Project Coordinator, as is evident from a perusal of reply filed by respondent No.2-Corporation, to regularize the services of the petitioner, he cannot be denied regularization only for the reason that the post was not available. If the competent authority takes too much time to create the post, the petitioner, who had been performing the duties, could not have been denied the claim of regularization after completion of eight years of service, especially when respondent No.2-Corporation in other cases had regularized all the employees after completion of eight years of service irrespective of the creation of the posts from retrospective dates, which action is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Once respondent No.2-Corporation has regularized the services of other employees after completion of eight years from retrospective dates, there is no plausible explanation coming forth to deny the similar relief to the petitioner. 13 8. Consequently, the present petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to regularize the services of the petitioner after completion of eight years of service as Project Coordinator w.e.f. 01.04.2007 except monetary benefits, which shall be paid to him prior to three years from the date of filing the present petition. In case the monetary benefits are not released in favour of the petitioner within three months from today, respondent No.2-Corporation shall pay interest on the arrears @6% per annum from today till actual payment to him. No order as to costs. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. ( Jiya Lal Bhardwaj ) 13th July, 2026 Judge (naveen)