2026:HHC:29092 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.12994 of 2026 Decided on: 16.07.2026 Balvir Singh & another … Petitioners Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others … Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1Yes ____________________________________________________ _ For the petitioners: M/s Vivek Thakur & Vijay Mokhta, Advocates. For the respondents: Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, Additional Advocate General. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this petition, the petitioners have, inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs:- “(i) That the writ in the nature of Mandamus may kindly be issued to the respondent regularized the petitioner from the date 30.09.2024 as well grant the seniority, promotion and all consequential financial benefits. (ii) That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue the Writ in the nature of mandamus, order or directions directing the Respondents to regularize the services of the Petitioners w.e.f. the date when the Petitioner have completed their two years' service on contract basis i.e. from the date the Regularization Policy was liberalized or from 01.09.2024, along with all consequential benefits.” 2. The petitioners before this Court were appointed as ‘Shastri Teachers’, on contract basis, in terms of Office Order dated 04.04.2022 (Annexure P-1), on the recommendation of the Screening 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2026:HHC:29092 Committee, constituted for the purpose of batch-wise Counselling of Language Teachers. The prayer of the petitioners in this writ petition is for their regularization w.e.f. 30.09.2024, on completion of two years of contract service, as per the regularization Policy of the State. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioners argued that in light of the fact that the petitioners were engaged in the month of April, 2022 and as in terms of the Policies of regularization of the State, the incumbents appointed on contract basis are to be regularized upon completion of two years of service, either on 30th day of April month of the year or 30th day of September month of the year, depending upon the date of their having completed two years of service, the petitioners were entitled for regularization w.e.f. 30.09.2024, yet their services have been regularized in terms of Order dated 17.04.2025 (Annexure P-3) w.e.f. from 17.04.2025. 4. Learned Counsel by referring to Annexure P-7 dated 02.04.2026, appended with the rejoinder filed to the reply, which is a communication issued on the subject of regularization of contract appointees in Government Departments in the financial years 2024- 25 and 2025-26, has submitted that even in terms of said communication, the petitioners, who had completed two years of continuous service as on 30.09.2024, were eligible for regularization after 30.09.2024, yet there is a delay in regularization of their services, which has not been ratified even after the issuance of 3 2026:HHC:29092 communication dated 02.04.2026 (Annexure P-7). Learned Counsel has handed over Office Order dated 07.07.2016, issued by Deputy Director of School Education (Elementary), District Kinnaur at Reckong-Peo, H.P., which is taken on record, in terms whereof, services of TGT Teachers appointed on contract basis, who had completed two years continuous service on 30.09.2024 and 30.09.2025, were regularized retrospectively w.e.f. 01.10.2024 and 01.10.2025. 5. On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General argued that the petitioners having been appointed on contract basis were not having any right of regularization until and unless there was a Policy formulated in this regard by the State Government. He submitted that in terms of the Policy which was subsequently formulated by the State, the petitioners were duly regularized in terms of Annexure P-3, i.e. communication dated 17.04.2025 and therefore, they cannot now subsequently, after having accepted the said regularization, seek regularization from a retrospective date. 6. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and having perused the pleadings as well as documents appended therewith, this Court is of the considered view that in the facts of present case, the petitioners have a right to be regularized w.e.f. 01.10.2024, instead of April, 2025. 7. The petitioners were appointed on contract basis on 04.04.2022. As observed hereinabove also, their appointment was 4 2026:HHC:29092 not a back-door entry, but was an appointment on batch-wise basis, on the recommendations of the Screening Committee. Thereafter, the Department itself regularized the services of the petitioners, vide Annexure P-3, i.e. order dated 17.04.2025. 8. This Court concurs with the submission of learned Additional Advocate General that regularization is not a matter of right and until and unless there is a Policy of regularization, the Court cannot issue a mandamus, ordering regularization of a contractual employee, but then, if there indeed is a Policy of regularization, the Court expects the Department to adhere to the said Policy. In terms of Annexure P-7, which is communication dated 02.04.2026, on the subject of regularization of contract appointees in the Government Departments in the financial years 2024-25 and 2025-26, it is specifically mentioned therein that the Government has decided that contractual employees, who had completed two years of continuous service as on 30.09.2024 and 30.09.2025, shall also be eligible for regularization under respective Policies after 30.09.2024 and 30.09.2025. Obviously, as this communication came into existence after the services of the petitioners were regularized in the month of April, 2025, it cannot be held by this Court that regularization, which was offered to the petitioners in the month of April, 2025, was suffering from any bias. But then, after communication dated 02.04.2026 came into existence, which conferred a right of regularization upon the petitioners who were 5 2026:HHC:29092 engaged in the financial year 2024-25, upon completion of two years of service as on 30.09.2024, their services should have been regularized w.e.f. 01.10.2024, rather than April, 2025. To this effect, the petitioners succeed. This is more so in light of the fact that in terms of Office Order dated 07.07.2026, passed by Deputy Director, School Education (Elementary), persons similarly situated as the petitioners have been regularized retrospectively upon completion of two years of contract service w.e.f. 01.10.2024. 9. That being the case, the petitioners cannot be denied the same relief and they also have a right of regularization retrospectively w.e.f. 01.10.2024 upon completion of two years of service on contract basis having been appointed against sanctioned post. 10. Accordingly, this petition is allowed with the direction to the Authorities concerned to regularize the services of the petitioners w.e.f. 01.10.2024, with all consequential benefits including seniority from the due date. 11. The petition stands disposed of. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge July 16, 2026 (Rishi)