Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 16852 (HP)

Pinki v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2026-03-02

Ajay Mohan Goel

body2026
JUDGMENT : Ajay Mohan Goel, J. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:- (i) “That by way of writ of certiorari the act of omission and commission of respondent No.1 to convey the desired/asked necessary approval of the government for the absorption of the petitioner in the Department as a Driver on the permanent basis so sought by respondent No.2 vide Annexure P-7 and P-8 may kindly be set aside and quashed. (ii) That by way of writ of mandamus, respondent No.1 may be directed to convey the necessary directions/orders of the Government for the absorption of the petitioner in the IGMC Shimla as a Driver on Permanent basis forthwith.” 2. When the case was listed on 24.02.2026, this Court has passed the following order:- “The petitioner before this Court is an employee of the Indian Red Cross Society, who since the month of March, 2015, is working on secondment basis on an ambulance at Kamla Nehru Hospital, Shimla and is aggrieved by the fact that his services are not being absorbed in the Health Department. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that on a previous occasion, person similarly situated as the petitioner i.e. Sh. Gian Rajta, who he believes, was also an employee of the Indian Red Cross Society and was engaged as a driver, after being sent on secondment basis to the Health Department, was absorbed therein. Learned counsel further submitted that though this information was sought by the petitioner under Right to Information Act but the same was denied to him in terms of the documents appended with the petition. Learned counsel thus submitted that as the petitioner is being discriminated against, the petition be allowed and a mandamus be issued to the respondents to absorb the petitioner in the Health Department, more so, in light of the fact that the Authority concerned has also recommended his absorption in public interest in terms of Annexure P-8. Learned Additional Advocate General is directed to have instructions as to whether Mr. Gian Rajta, an employee of Red Cross Society, was engaged on secondment basis as a driver in the Health Department and if yes, whether his services were subsequently absorbed etc. in the Health Department or not. Learned Additional Advocate General is directed to have instructions as to whether Mr. Gian Rajta, an employee of Red Cross Society, was engaged on secondment basis as a driver in the Health Department and if yes, whether his services were subsequently absorbed etc. in the Health Department or not. Learned Additional Advocate General to also have instructions as to whether the said person was actually an employee of the Indian Red Cross Society when his services were offered on secondment basis to the Health Department. Let necessary information be supplied to the Court on the next date of hearing. List on 02.03.2026.” 3. Today, learned Assistant Advocate General has handed over instructions received from Director Health Services, perusal whereof, demonstrates that Sh. Gian Rajta was not an employee of the Red Cross Society, but was an employee of H.P. Agro Industrial Packaging India Limited, wherefrom, he was deployed on secondment basis in the Health Department. His services were absorbed in the Health Department on the approval of the Government. 4. Faced with the situation, learned counsel for the petitioner referred to Annexure P-15 appended with the rejoinder and submitted that one Smt. Sujata Macack, who was an employee of the Red Cross Society was deputed to the Secretariat of Worthy, Governor of Himachal Pradesh and later on her services were absorbed. Learned counsel appearing for the Red Cross has informed the Court that Red Cross is directly under Worthy Governor of Himachal Pradesh and there are bye laws of Red Cross Society, which enable an employee of the Red Cross Society to be deputed to the Secretariat of Worthy Governor of the State. 5. Be that as it may, this Court is of the considered view that no mandamus can be issued by this Court as is being prayed for by the petitioner for the absorption of the petitioner in the Health Department as a Driver on permanent basis. It is a matter of record that the petitioner is an employee of the Red Cross Society, meaning thereby that the petitioner is neither an employee of the State Government nor any body owned by the State Government. Simply because the services of the petitioner were deputed to the Health Department, it does not confer any right upon the petitioner to claim his regularization in the Health Department. Simply because the services of the petitioner were deputed to the Health Department, it does not confer any right upon the petitioner to claim his regularization in the Health Department. The examples, which have been given by the petitioner in support of his contention, do not further his cause because in other cases it were the employees of Department or Board etc., of the State Government, who were deputed to the Health Department and later on absorbed by the Health Department. The Secretariat of Worthy Governor cannot be equated with Government Department. 6. Therefore, in these circumstances as there is no parity in the case of the petitioner vis-à-vis examples quoted no relief as prayed for can be granted. However, the petition is closed with the observation that in case the Red Cross does not has any objection to the absorption of the petitioner in the Health Department then the case of the petitioner may be sympathetically considered by the Health Department taking into consideration the long service that has been rendered to the Health Department by the petitioner. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of.