Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 16505 (HP)

Bahadur Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2026-04-07

Ajay Mohan Goel

body2026
JUDGMENT : Ajay Mohan Goel, J. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs:- “i) The respondents may kindly be directed to regularize the services of the applicant w.e.f. 01.01.2000 instead of June, 2017 by taking into account the service rendered by the applicant on daily wages basis w.e.f. 01.01.1990 onwards with minimum 240 days in each calendar year; ii) The respondents be further directed to pay to the applicant all consequential benefits arisen out of grant of benefit of regularization w.e.f. 01.01.2000. The arrears of pay and allowances be ordered to be paid to the petitioner along-with interest @ 9% per annum.” 2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that the petitioner was employed as a Beldar on daily wage basis with effect from 01.01.1990 and deployed as such at Dalikar Nursery under Range office, Pandoh, District Mandi, H.P. According to the petitioner, he continued to serve as such regularly with 240 days in each calendar year. Unfortunately, in the year 2003, he had to undergo treatment in a hospital on account of snake bite with effect from 16.05.2003 up to 25.05.2003 and in this particular year, he could not complete 240 days. The services of the petitioner were regularized against the post of Chowkidar vide Annexure P-3, dated 31.05.2017. Feeling aggrieved by the fact that the services of the petitioner were regularized with effect from the year 2017 rather than the year 2000, he filed an Original Application No.6423/2018 before the Erstwhile Himachal Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal, praying therein for issuance of a direction to the Authorities to regularize his services with effect from 01.01.2000 with all consequential benefits. The petition was disposed of by the Erstwhile Himachal Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal vide Annexure P-5, with direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner in the light of the judgment in Mool Raj Upadhyay Vs. State of H.P. & Ors. Thereafter, the respondents passed an order Annexure P-7, dated 19.06.2019 and rejected the claim of the petitioner on the ground that his case was not covered under Mool Raj Upadhyay’s case. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed contempt proceedings, which were disposed of by this Court vide Annexure P-8, dated 05.07.2022, giving liberty to the petitioner to assail the order passed by the Authority. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed contempt proceedings, which were disposed of by this Court vide Annexure P-8, dated 05.07.2022, giving liberty to the petitioner to assail the order passed by the Authority. This petition has been filed as a result of said liberty granted by the Court. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the factum of the petitioner having served with the respondents as a Beldar is not in dispute. By drawing the attention of the Court to the reply filed by the State, learned counsel submitted that even the State admits that the petitioner was engaged as a daily wage worker with effect from 01.07.1995. Learned counsel by referring to the preliminary submissions made in the reply filed by the respondents, submitted that there is own admission of the Department that as from 01.07.1995, the petitioner worked continuously and completed 240 days in each calendar year up to the year 2002 and during the year 2003, he completed only 232 days and as from the year 2004 onwards, he again worked continuously as a daily wager by putting in 240 days in each calendar year up to his regularization. In this backdrop, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the regularization of the petitioner with effect from 2017 and not immediately after completion of eight years of service as from 01.07.1995, is highly arbitrary. Learned counsel submitted that in light of the fact that the respondents admitted that the petitioner served as a daily wager with effect from 01.07.1995, this petition be disposed of by issuing a direction to the respondents to consider his case for regularization/conferment of work charge status with consequential benefits by treating the said date to be the entry date in service of the petitioner. 4. On the other hand, learned Deputy Advocate General submitted that taking the service of the petitioner on daily wage with effect from 01.07.1995 and further taking into consideration the fact that there was break in service in the year 2003, the services of the petitioner were regularized, as and when his turn came in the year 2017, therefore, there is no infirmity in the regularization of his services as from the year 2007. Learned Deputy Advocate General further submitted that in light of the fact that there was a break in service in the year 2003, the petitioner cannot claim that his services be considered as from 01.07.1995 for the purpose of regularization/conferment of work charge status. Learned Deputy Advocate General also submitted that the rejection of the case of the petitioner by the Authority on the ground that the case of the petitioner was not covered by Mool Raj Upadhyay’s case, also is justified 5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Deputy Advocate General and have also carefully gone through the pleadings as well as the documents appended with the petition. 6. Though the contention of the petitioner in the writ petition is that he was initially engaged as a daily wage worker in the year 1990, but as has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court for the purpose of adjudicating this petition, is taking the date of joining of the petitioner as a daily wage worker as 01.07.1995, which is undisputed and admitted by the respondents also. 7. Now, in terms of the reply filed by the Department, the petitioner is stated to have completed 240 days in each calendar year as from 01.07.1995 up to the year 2002. Even in the year 2003, the petitioner is stated to have completed 232 days and as from the year 2004 onwards, the Department states that he completed 240 days in each year up to his regularization, which took place in the year 2007. The petitioner has appended with the petition the Medical Certificate (Annexure P-2) to demonstrate that he was bitten by a snake in the said year. 8. In light of the fact that the petitioner had put in 232 days even in the year 2003, this Court is of the considered view that the eight days shortfall in completion of 240 days, ought to have been condoned in view of the long service rendered by the petitioner before 2003 and the act of the respondents of not condoning the shortfall of eight days is not justified. Had the shortage of eight days in the year 2003 been condoned, obviously, the petitioner would have had been considered for regularization by the Department earlier also. 9. Had the shortage of eight days in the year 2003 been condoned, obviously, the petitioner would have had been considered for regularization by the Department earlier also. 9. Learned counsel for the parties were called upon by the Court to assist the Court as to which Regularization Policy of the State would be relevant for the purpose of the adjudication of this case, by construing the date of engagement of the petitioner to be the month of July 1995. The Court has been handed over the Regularization Policy which was brought into force by the State dated 09.06.2006 and in terms thereof, the Government took a decision that daily wage/contingent paid worker in all Departments, who had completed eight years of continuous service with a minimum of 240 days in a calendar year as on 31.3.2004, be regularized against vacant posts in various Departments. 10. In the present case, as the date of joining of the petitioner as a daily wager with effect from 01.07.1995 is an admitted position, obviously, while calculating his eligibility for regularization, the number of days he had put in in the year 1995, were also to be taken into consideration. Besides this, the shortfall of eight days for completion of 240 days in the year 2003, was not on account of any omission or commission on the part of the petitioner. It was for reasons beyond the control of the petitioner as he was bitten by a snake, on account whereof, he could not attend the work. In these peculiar circumstances, interest of justice demanded that the eight days shortfall in completion of 240 days, should have been condoned by the Department. 11. That being the case, obviously, the denial of regularization to the petitioner upon completion of eight years in terms of Regularization Policy, dated 09.06.2006 is not sustainable in the eyes of law. The Department erred in conferring regularization to the petitioner from the year 2017 only. The rejection of the representation of the petitioner on the ground that his case was not covered as per Mool Raj Upadhyay’s case, also requires to be set aside for the reason that the Authority should have itself come to the rescue of the petitioner and held that he had a right of regularization in terms of the Regularization Policy, dated 09.06.2006. 12. This Court would like to make an observation at this stage. 12. This Court would like to make an observation at this stage. Majority of Class-IV employees, who join service on daily wage basis, are rustic villagers and persons who are not all that well educated. Therefore, once the Government brings into force the Policy of Regularization, it is not for the daily wager to run after the Government or the Court, for the implementation of the Policy of Regularization. The onus is upon the Department to confirm the benefit to all who are covered by the Policy. 13. In the present case, as the petitioner was covered by the Policy of Regularization, dated 09.06.2006 and delay in the implementation thereof, obviously, cannot come to the rescue of the Department and the petitioner has a right to be considered for regularization, in terms of said Policy. 14. Accordingly, in light of the above discussion, this writ petition is allowed. Order dated 31.05.2017 (Annexure P- 3), is quashed and set aside. Respondents are directed to pass fresh orders with regard to the regularization/conferment of work charge status upon the petitioner post completion of eight years of service, in terms of the Regularization Policy dated 09.06.2006, by construing the date of his engagement to be 01.07.1995, within a period of three months from today. The shortfall of eight days in completion of 240 days in the year 2003, if becomes a hurdle in this regard, is hereby ordered to be condoned. Benefits which shall be accruable to the petitioner, shall be notional as up to the date three years prior to the filing of the Original Application by the petitioner before the learned Tribunal and thereafter, actual benefits to which the petitioner shall be entitled to, shall be conferred upon him. 15. The petition is disposed of in above terms. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.