JUDGMENT : BIPIN CHANDER NEGI, J. The present Letters Patent Appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment dated 30th June, 2025, whereby the present appellants have been directed to consider the case of the present respondent for grant of work charge status and regularization of the service of the present respondent from the due date, in accordance with law as laid down in Sant Ram and another vs. State of H.P bearing CWPOA No. 3562 of 2019 decided on 6.9.2022, and Bhupender Singh Mehta and another vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and another bearing CWPOA No. 2979 of 2020 decided on 18.3.2025. The aforesaid, as per the impugned judgment, is required to be done within six weeks. Benefits, if any, flowing to the present respondent are also to be released within the aforesaid period. 2. The admitted facts in the case at hand are that the present respondent was initially engaged in the Integrated Watershed Development Project, (IWDP) Kandi from 4.2.2000 to 30.9.2005. Subsequently the respondent was engaged in HP Mid Himalayan Watershed Development Project (HPMHWDP) from 2005 to 2017 and thereafter till date the respondent is working on Daily Wage basis in a project named Integrated Development Project for Source Sustainability and Climate Resilient Rain-fed Agriculture (IDP) (See preliminary submission No. 1 in the reply filed by respondent No. 3 present appellant No.3 to the writ petition placed at page 175 of the paper book). 3. Besides the aforesaid, in the reply filed to the writ petition, it has been categorically averred by present appellant No. 3 that the present respondent is a member of the H.P. Natural Resource Management Society formed in 2006 and is, therefore, governed by its rules and policy. 4. Alongwith the reply filed by present appellant No. 3 to the writ petition, Notification dated 19.4.2017 (Annexure R-2) has been placed on record (page 191 of the paper book). From a perusal of the Notification, it is evident that the Himachal Pradesh Forest Department has implemented the following projects, namely, Kandi Project I & II (1990–2005), Indo German Changer Project (1992–2006), H.P. Mid Himalayan Watershed Development Project (2005–2017), and the Swan River Project Una (2006–2016). Vide the aforesaid Notification, a policy was framed to regulate the service conditions of the staff engaged in the aforesaid projects, Annexure-A thereto. 5. Vide the aforesaid Notification, a policy was framed to regulate the service conditions of the staff engaged in the aforesaid projects, Annexure-A thereto. 5. From a perusal of Clause 4.1 of the policy so framed, it is evident that the Himachal Pradesh Natural Resource Management Society is the controlling authority for all project staff executed under the H.P. Forest Department irrespective of the project they worked in and the funding agency. In clause 6.1 of the policy, it has been mentioned that the staff engaged in the projects shall not be the employees of the H.P. Government, and all decisions regarding the deployment and service conditions of the project staff will be taken by the society. Other than the aforesaid, it has been categorically specified in the aforesaid clause that the appointment shall not confer any right on the incumbent for regularization of service at any stage in the Government of Himachal Pradesh. 6. Further, perusal of clause 2 of the policy specifically 2.1 therein, reflects that in case the aforesaid society has no funds to pay, then employees of the said society can be seconded/deputed to the Forest Department/other departments in their present status, i.e. contract basis/daily wage basis, as the case may be, however, their lien shall be retained in the society. 7. In the aforesaid backdrop, the learned Single Judge had considered the case of the present respondent in light of the decision in Sant Ram and another vs. State of H.P. and others bearing CWPOA No. 3562 of 2019 decided on 6.9.2022. Therein, the petitioners were Class-IV employees engaged in the Kandi Project on a daily wage basis in the year 1996. Post conclusion of the Kandi Project, wherein they had been engaged, their services were used by the Forest Department in the Mid Himalayan Watershed Development Project. 8. Taking into account the fact that the petitioners therein had been engaged for more than 16 years continuously, and the fact that similarly situated individuals had been regularized, the Court, keeping in view the legitimate expectation of the petitioners, allowed the petition and granted a work charge status to the petitioners therein on completion of eight years of continuous daily wage service commencing from 1.1.1997. 9. The said judgment was assailed in LPA No. 153 of 2023, which was decided on 7.10.2023. The appeal so preferred by the State was dismissed. 9. The said judgment was assailed in LPA No. 153 of 2023, which was decided on 7.10.2023. The appeal so preferred by the State was dismissed. Special Leave Petition preferred by the State against the aforesaid decision of the Division Bench of this Court was disposed of by the Hon’ble Apex Court with the lead case titled State of Himachal Pradesh and another vs. Suraj Mani and another bearing Civil Appeal No. 1595 of 2025, decided alongwith the connected matters on 6.2.2025. The Apex Court held the respondents therein to be entitled for grant of work charge status from the date of completion of eight years of service, however, the benefits therein were limited to notional benefits in terms of the judgment passed in Ashwani Kumar’s case i.e. Civil Appeal No. 5753 of 2019 decided on 22.7.2019 by the Apex Court. 10. Other than the aforesaid, the claim of the respondent herein was considered by the learned Single Judge in terms of the judgment in Bhupender Singh Mehta and another vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and another i.e. CWPOA No. 2979 of 2020 decided on 18.3.2025 by the learned Single Judge. In the aforesaid case, the writ petitioners had been appointed on a contract basis, and they were similarly situated as the petitioners in Sant Ram’s case (supra). 11. Against the aforesaid judgment, the State preferred an appeal i.e. LPA No. 841 of 2025 titled State of H.P. and another vs. Bhupender Singh Mehta, the same has been dismissed by us on 17.03.2026 and the judgment of the learned Single Judge therein has been upheld. 12. First and foremost, the learned Single Judge in the case at hand while allowing the petition and directing the present appellants to regularize the service of the present respondent has correctly observed that in the response filed by appellant No. 3 on behalf of the appellants in the writ petition, it has been categorically admitted in paras 19 to 21 therein that the present respondent is similarly situated as the petitioners in Sant Ram’s case. As has already been stated supra relief of work charge status granted in Sant Ram’s case by the writ court to the petitioners therein on completion of eight years of continuous daily wage service was up-held by the Division bench in appeal and affirmed by the apex court. As has already been stated supra relief of work charge status granted in Sant Ram’s case by the writ court to the petitioners therein on completion of eight years of continuous daily wage service was up-held by the Division bench in appeal and affirmed by the apex court. On principle of parity similar relief cannot be denied to the present respondent. 13. Other than the aforesaid from the factual matrix in the case at hand, it is evident that the nature of the work performed by the respondent is neither temporary nor occasional. Rather the recurring nature of duties reflects the nature of the work performed by the respondent was perennial and fundamental to the functioning of the Society. In the aforesaid backdrop, a fair and humane resolution becomes paramount when tasks inherently required to be performed on a regular basis for a prolonged, continuous period are performed as have been done in the case at hand by unblemished service. Absence of regular posts would be of no consequence. Moreover, refusing regularization would be contrary to principles of fairness and equity. In this respect it would be appropriate to refer to the authoritative pronouncement of the apex court in Jaggo Versus Union of India and Others, 2024 INSC 1034 (SLP(C) No.5580 of 2024). The relevant extract thereof reads as under:- “13. The claim by the respondents that these were not regular posts lacks merit, as the nature of the work performed by the appellants was perennial and fundamental to the functioning of the offices. The recurring nature of these duties necessitates their classification as regular posts, irrespective of how their initial engagements were labelled. It is also noteworthy that subsequent outsourcing of these same tasks to private agencies after the appellants’ termination demonstrates the inherent need for these services. This act of outsourcing, which effectively replaced one set of workers with another, further underscores that the work in question was neither temporary nor occasional. 20. It is well established that the decision in Uma Devi (supra) does not intend to penalize employees who have rendered long years of service fulfilling ongoing and necessary functions of the State or its instrumentalities. The said judgment sought to prevent backdoor entries and illegal appointments that circumvent constitutional requirements. 20. It is well established that the decision in Uma Devi (supra) does not intend to penalize employees who have rendered long years of service fulfilling ongoing and necessary functions of the State or its instrumentalities. The said judgment sought to prevent backdoor entries and illegal appointments that circumvent constitutional requirements. However, where appointments were not illegal but possibly “irregular,” and where employees had served continuously against the backdrop of sanctioned functions for a considerable period, the need for a fair and humane resolution becomes paramount. Prolonged, continuous, and unblemished service performing tasks inherently required on a regular basis can, over the time, transform what was initially ad-hoc or temporary into a scenario demanding fair regularization. In a recent judgement of this Court in Vinod Kumar and Ors. Etc. Vs. Union of India & Ors, it was held that held that procedural formalities cannot be used to deny regularization of service to an employee whose appointment was termed "temporary" but has performed the same duties as performed by the regular employee over a considerable period in the capacity of the regular employee. The relevant paras of this judgement have been reproduced below: “6. The application of the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) by the High Court does not fit squarely with the facts at hand, given the specific circumstances under which the appellants were employed and have continued their service. The reliance on procedural formalities at the outset cannot be used to perpetually deny substantive rights that have accrued over a considerable period through continuous service. Their promotion was based on a specific notification for vacancies and a subsequent circular, followed by a selection process involving written tests and interviews, which distinguishes their case from the appointments through back door entry as discussed in the case of Uma Devi (supra). 7. The judgement in the case Uma Devi (supra) also distinguished between “irregular” and “illegal” appointments underscoring the importance of considering certain appointments even if were not made strictly in accordance with the prescribed Rules and Procedure, cannot be said to have been made illegally if they had followed the procedures of regular appointments such as conduct of written examinations or interviews as in the present case…” 21. The High Court placed undue emphasis on the initial label of the appellants’ engagements and the outsourcing decision taken after their dismissal. The High Court placed undue emphasis on the initial label of the appellants’ engagements and the outsourcing decision taken after their dismissal. Courts must look beyond the surface labels and consider the realities of employment: continuous, long-term service, indispensable duties, and absence of any mala fide or illegalities in their appointments. In that light, refusing regularization simply because their original terms did not explicitly state so, or because an outsourcing policy was belatedly introduced, would be contrary to principles of fairness and equity. 26. While the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) sought to curtail the practice of backdoor entries and ensure appointments adhered to constitutional principles, it is regrettable that its principles are often misinterpreted or misapplied to deny legitimate claims of long serving employees. This judgment aimed to distinguish between “illegal” and “irregular” appointments. It categorically held that employees in irregular appointments, who were engaged in duly sanctioned posts and had served continuously for more than ten years, should be considered for regularization as a one-time measure. However, the laudable intent of the judgment is being subverted when institutions rely on its dicta to indiscriminately reject the claims of employees, even in cases where their appointments are not illegal, but merely lack adherence to procedural formalities. Government departments often cite the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) to argue that no vested right to regularization exists for temporary employees, overlooking the judgment's explicit acknowledgment of cases where regularization is appropriate. This selective application distorts the judgment's spirit and purpose, effectively weaponizing it against employees who have rendered indispensable services over decades.” 14. Besides the aforestated, the duties being performed by the respondent in the case at hand are integral to the day-to-day functioning of the organization. The practice adopted by appellants of engaging the respondent under the nominal labels of “daily wage” in perpetuity and thereby exploiting him by not regularizing his position is highly deprecable. Government departments are expected to lead by example in ensuring fair and stable employment. In the case at hand the appellants have continued for years the exploitative engagement without undertaking regular recruitment. The culture of ad-hocism being perpetrated by the appellants is also highly deprecable. Government departments are expected to lead by example in ensuring fair and stable employment. In the case at hand the appellants have continued for years the exploitative engagement without undertaking regular recruitment. The culture of ad-hocism being perpetrated by the appellants is also highly deprecable. The Apex Court on several occasions has deprecated the practice of engaging employees under the nominal labels of “contractual” or “temporary” and has cautioned against a mechanical and blind reliance on Uma Devi, and has strongly deprecated the culture of ad-hocism. In this respect reference can be made to the apex court judgement in Bhola Nath Versus State of Jharkhand and Others, 2026 INSC 99 (SLP(C) No.30762 of 2024). The relevant extracts read as under:- 13…………… 13.6. This Court has, on several occasions, deprecated the practice adopted by States of engaging employees under the nominal labels of “part-time”, “contractual” or “temporary” in perpetuity and thereby exploiting them by not regularizing their positions. In Jaggo v. Union of India, this Court underscored that government departments must lead by example in ensuring fair and stable employment, and evolved the test of examining whether the duties performed by such temporary employees are integral to the day-to-day functioning of the organization. 13.7. In Shripal v. Nagar Nigam, and Vinod Kumar v. Union of India, this Court cautioned against a mechanical and blind reliance on Umadevi (supra) to deny regularization to temporary employees in the absence of statutory rules. It was held that Umadevi (supra) cannot be employed as a shield to legitimise exploitative engagements continued for years without undertaking regular recruitment. The Court further clarified that Umadevi itself draws a distinction between appointments that are “illegal” and those that are merely “irregular”, the latter being amenable to regularization upon fulfilment of the prescribed conditions. 13.8. In Dharam Singh v. State of U.P., this Court strongly deprecated the culture of “ad-hocism” adopted by States in their capacity as employers. The Court criticised the practice of outsourcing or informalizing recruitment as a means to evade regular employment obligations, observing that such measures perpetuate precarious working conditions while circumventing fair and lawful engagement practices. 13.9. The State must remain conscious that part-time employees, such as the appellants, constitute an integral part of the edifice upon which the machinery of the State continues to function. They are not merely ancillary to the system, but form essential components thereof. 13.9. The State must remain conscious that part-time employees, such as the appellants, constitute an integral part of the edifice upon which the machinery of the State continues to function. They are not merely ancillary to the system, but form essential components thereof. The equality mandate of our Constitution, therefore, requires that their service be reciprocated in a manner free from arbitrariness, ensuring that decisions of the State affecting the scareers and livelihood of such part-time and contractual employees are guided by fairness and reason. 15. Moreover in the case at hand the respondent has continued to discharge his duties on daily wage posts for a considerable length of time. On account of repeated extension the respondent has continued in service and has been refrained from seeking alternative employment, notwithstanding the daily wage nature of engagement. In the aforesaid facts and attending circumstances it is but natural that a legitimate expectation arises that the appellants would, at some stage, recognize the respondents long and continuous service. With respect to the legitimate expectation of the respondent in the case at hand, it would be relevant to refer to the binding judgement of the apex court in Bhola Nath (supra) wherein the case of similarly situated employees has been dealt with. The relevant extract thereof reads as under:- Legitimate Expectation of the employees: - 13. Another facet requiring consideration in the case of contractual employees, such as the present appellants, is the doctrine of legitimate expectation. Where employees have continued to discharge their duties on contractual posts for a considerable length of time, as in the present case, it is but natural that a legitimate expectation arises that the State would, at some stage, recognize their long and continuous service. It is in this belief, bolstered by repeated extensions granted by the Executive, that such employees continue in service and refrain from seeking alternative employment, notwithstanding the contractual nature of their engagement. At this juncture, it is thus apposite to advert to the principles governing the doctrine of legitimate expectation as enunciated by this Court in Army Welfare Education Society v. Sunil Kumar Sharma, 8 wherein it was held as follows: - “63. A reading of the aforesaid decisions brings forth the following features regarding the doctrine of legitimate expectation: 63.1. First, legitimate expectation must be based on a right as opposed to a mere hope, wish or anticipation; 63.2. A reading of the aforesaid decisions brings forth the following features regarding the doctrine of legitimate expectation: 63.1. First, legitimate expectation must be based on a right as opposed to a mere hope, wish or anticipation; 63.2. Secondly, legitimate expectation must arise either from an express or implied promise; or a consistent past practice or custom followed by an authority in its dealings; . . . 63.5. Fifthly, legitimate expectation operates in the realm of public law, that is, a plea of legitimate action can be taken only when a public authority breaches a promise or deviates from a consistent past practice, without any reasonable basis. . . . 64. The aforesaid features, although not exhaustive in nature, are sufficient to help us in deciding the applicability of the doctrine of legitimate expectation to the facts of the case at hand. It is clear that legitimate expectation, jurisprudentially, was a device created in order to maintain a check on arbitrariness in State action. It does not extend to and cannot govern the operation of contracts between private parties, wherein the doctrine of promissory estoppel holds the field.” (emphasis laid) It is, therefore, not difficult to comprehend the expectation with which such contractual employees continue in the service of the State. The repeated conduct of the employer-State in expressing confidence in their performance and consistently granting monetary upgrades & tenure extensions reasonably nurtures an expectation that their long and continuous service would receive further recognition. 16. The parties in the case at hand are not equal in bargaining power. The inequality of bargaining power in the case at hand is the result of the great disparity in the economic strength of the parties. The respondent in the case at hand has no choice, or rather no meaningful choice, but to give his assent to the employment no matter however unfair, unreasonable and unconscionable the terms may be.In the said backdrop to secure social, economic justice and in order to conform to the mandate of the equality clause in Article 14 courts will not enforce and will, when called upon to do so, strike down an unfair and unreasonable terms of employment, entered into between parties who are not equal in bargaining power. In the facts of the present case it can safely be said that the mighty State through the Forest Department and ordinary daily wager (present respondent), who is seeking regularisation, have an un-equal bargaining power. 17. Thus, for the reasons stated herein above we are of the considered view that the learned Single Judge has not erred in any manner in allowing the writ petition and we also do not find any plausible reason to take a different view. Therefore, the present appeal is dismissed being devoid of merit and the judgment passed by learned Single Judge is upheld. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of.