2026:HHC:31619 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.15595 of 2025 Reserved on:09.07.2026 Decided on: 30.07.2026 Uploaded on: 30.07.2026 Vidhan Sharma … Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others … Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1Yes ____________________________________________________ _ For the petitioner: Mr. Surender Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, Additional Advocate General. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge By way of this petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs:- “(i) That the impugned Annexure-P8 order dated 18.06.2025, passed by respondent No.2, may kindly be quashed and set aside; (ii) That respondents No.1 and 2 may kindly be directed to regularize the services of the petitioner w.e.f. 01.01.2011 with all consequential benefits, such as arrears of salary, seniority and promotion etc.; (iii) That the respondents may kindly be directed grant and release the arrears of salary to the petitioner alongwith interest @ 12% per annum w.e.f. 01.01.2011 till the date of its disbursement.” 2. The case of the petitioner is that in terms of Annexure P- 1, a communication was sent by the Secretary (Education) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh to the Principal, SCERT, Rabon, 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2026:HHC:31619 District Solan, H.P. that Chairman, Finance Committee had conveyed the approval to engage Caretaker, Attendant and Sweeper on daily wages, subject to the condition that ex-post-facto approval of the Finance Committee will have to be obtained in the matter. It was also mentioned in this communication that wages of these daily wagers will have to be borne by the Society out of its own funds. Thereafter, in terms of Annexure P-2, the present petitioner was engaged as a Hostel Caretaker (Storekeeper) on daily wage basis w.e.f. 11.11.2002. The appointment letter of the petitioner is signed by respondent No.3. As per the petitioner, he is serving against the post in issue till date. The petitioner filed an Original Application before the erstwhile learned Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, praying for regularization of his services w.e.f. 01.01.2011, with all consequential benefits, which Original Application after the abolition of the learned Tribunal was transferred to this Court and registered as CWPOA No.4978 of 2019. Said petition was disposed of by this Court in terms of judgment dated 24.04.2025, which judgment is being quoted hereinbelow in totality, as it lays down the complete factual matrix of this case:- “The instant petition has been filed for the following substantive relief(s):- “That the respondents may be directed to regularize the services of the applicant with effect from 01.01.2011 with all consequential benefits.” 2. The case as set-up by the petitioner is that he was appointed as Hostel Care Taker (Store Keeper) in State Council for Education, Research and Training ( for short “SCERT”), on daily wages w.e.f. 11.11.2002, in terms of office order dated 06.11.2002, Annexure A-1. Petitioner 3 2026:HHC:31619 is continuing in the same position and on the same terms till date. 3. It is averred that on 05.11.2002, the Secretary (Education) to the Government of H.P., vide communication of the same date, had conveyed to the Principal, SCERT, Solan, the approval of Chairman Finance Committee to engage Care Taker/Attendant and Sweeper on daily wage basis, subject to the condition that the ex-post facto approval of Finance Committee would be obtained in the matter. The wages of these daily wage employees were directed to be borne by the SCERT from its own funds. It was in pursuance to the aforesaid communication that the office order dated 06.11.2002, appointing petitioner as Hostel Care Taker (Store Keeper) in SCERT, was issued. 4. Petitioner has also placed reliance on the ‘Minutes of Meeting’ of the Finance Committee of SCERT, dated 31.10.2003, in which vide item No. 3, it was resolved as under:- Item No. 3 As far as Item No. 3 is concerned the members of the committee accorded their sanction to fill up the post of care taker and sweeper of the Hostel on year to year contract basis on a fixed salary of Rs. 5,000/- and 3,000/- per month respectively. It was decided that out of the present sanctioned posts of SCERT Society two posts i.e. one class III (Lab Attendant) and one class IV be surrendered and conversion of the same may be sought from the finance Department to Hostel of SCERT Society, so that their fixed salary could be drawn against the regular sanctioned/converted posts and not from the income of the Hostel. The procedure for filling up of these posts may strictly be followed in accordance with the norms already approved by the Govt. and conveyed to the field from time to time.” 5. In sequel to aforesaid resolution, Principal-cum- Member Secretary, SCERT, had sought necessary sanction from the Principal Secretary (Education) with respect to conversion of posts of Laboratory Attendant and Class-IV into Care Taker and Sweeper in SCERT, Hostel Solan, H.P. 6. Petitioner had also submitted his individual representation to the authorities seeking regularization of his services on completion of the requisite period as per the regularization policy of the State Government. In response, the Director of Higher Education, vide communication dated 07.12.2011, addressed to the 4 2026:HHC:31619 Principal, SCERT, had sought pointwise comments. 7. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents/authorities did not take any decision which forced him to file the instant petition in the year 2015. 8. Respondents have filed their reply. The factual position as averred in the petition has not been denied. Their defence is that without there being substantive post of Care Taker in the SCERT Hostel, the services of petitioner could not be regularized. It is also contended that respondent No. 2, vide letter dated 16.12.2004, had directed respondent No. 3 to take action as per the norms of SCERT and because in SCERT norms there was no provision for regularization of employees engaged in society mode, the request of the petitioner could not be acceded to. 9. Respondents have also taken objection of petition being time barred. 10. Petitioner filed the rejoinder and has refuted the averments made in the reply. It has been submitted that the SCERT, Solan, imparts training and conduct orientation programmes for the teachers i.e. PGTs, Head Masters, Principals, College Lecturers and Deputy Directors etc. working with the State Government. The Government of Himachal Pradesh, exercises deep and pervasive control over the affairs of respondent No. 3. The Director Education, Joint Director Education and Under Secretary Finance are the members of third respondent, which by no means can be said to be a private society. It for all intents and purposes is discharging public functions, hence, it cannot be allowed to absolve itself by saying that the government rules were not applicable to its employees. Petitioner has also placed on record a communication dated 20.07.2011, issued by Principal Secretary (Personnel) to the Government of H.P. to all the Principal Secretaries and Head of Departments in the State providing details of the terms and conditions of the regularization policy of the State Government. 11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case carefully. 12. At the outset, it is noticed that the plea raised by respondents to the effect that second respondent had issued directions to the third respondent to take action as per society norms, vide letter dated 16.12.2004 is not substantiated. No such document has been placed on record. The said plea rather becomes doubtful as the communication dated 14.01.2005, Annexure A-4, on record from respondent No. 3 to the Principal Secretary 5 2026:HHC:31619 (Education) clearly reveals that the third respondent had sought necessary sanction for conversion of posts of Lab Attendant and Class-IV into posts of Care Taker and Sweeper for SCERT Hostel, Solan, H.P. In this correspondence, there was no reference to the alleged communication dated 16.12.2004, issued by respondent No. 2 to respondent No. 3. The said contention is further belied from the contents of document i.e. communication dated 07.12.2011, from respondent No. 2 to respondent No. 3, placed on record as Annexure A-5, whereby such respondent had sought comments on the representation of the petitioner, by way of which the petitioner had sought regularization of his services on completion of ten years. 13. Thus, it is clearly evident that the respondents have failed to take any final decision in the matter of petitioner. 14. It is sufficiently shown on record that there was genuine need and requirement for the post of Hostel Care Taker in SCERT, Solan. The Secretary (Education) had conveyed approval of Chairman Finance Committee to engage Care Taker on daily wage basis vide communication dated 05.11.2002, Annexure A-2. It was subject to only one condition that ex post facto approval of Finance Committee was to be taken. The Finance Committee, admittedly, had accorded the sanction to the posts of Care Taker and Sweeper in the Hostel. A decision was taken by the Finance Committee to this effect in its meeting held on 31.10.2003. It was further decided that out of the sanctioned post of SCERT, two posts i.e. one Class-III (Lab Attendant) and one Class-IV be surrendered and permission for conversion of the same be sought from the Finance Department, in order to enable the SCERT to draw the fixed salary of Care Taker and Sweeper against the regular sanctioned/converted post and not from the income of the hostel. It was after the aforesaid decision of the Finance Committee that the third respondent had sought the permission from the Principal Secretary (Education), vide Annexure A-4, as noticed above. 15. However, evidently no final decision has been taken by the competent authority till date. Petitioner is now working for last about twenty-three years. 16. There cannot be any doubt with respect to the entity of SCERT being an instrumentality of State Government. It discharges public functions. The SCERT is nothing but an extended wing of Government. Under the garb of being a society, it cannot use exploitative policies against 6 2026:HHC:31619 its employees. In other words, the SCERT cannot be allowed to be used by the State for said exploitative policies. 17. Once, the petitioner was appointed in SCERT after the grant of sanction by the Chairman Finance Committee and subsequently, ratified by the Finance Committee, to say that petitioner will not be entitled for the benefits of regularization at par with similarly situated employees of State will be unjustified and antithetic to the Constitutional Principle laid down in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 18. In the given circumstances, the petition is disposed of with the directions to the respondents to consider and take a final decision in the case of petitioner within a period of six weeks from the date of the passing of this order, strictly in terms of the observations made hereinabove. 19. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. 20. List for compliance on 19.06.2025.” 3. In compliance to this judgment, the Authority has passed impugned order dated 18.06.2025, which reads as under:- “ORDER Whereas, the petitioner Sh. Vidhan Sharma filed CWPOA 4978/2019 for regularisation of the services. The operative part of Judgment/Order dated 24-04-2025 which has been received in this Directorate on 12-06-25 passed by the Hon'ble High of H.P. Court is as under:- "18. In the given circumstances, the petition is disposed of with the directions to the respondents to consider and take a final decision in the case of petitioner within a period of six weeks from the date of the passing of this order, strictly in terms of the observations made hereinabove." And Whereas, on the perusal of record produced by the officials of SCERT Solan, the petitioner was initially engaged by SCERT Society Solan as Hostel Care Taker (Store Keeper) to look after the Hostel for 89 days vide 7 2026:HHC:31619 Office Order dated 6-11-2002 with the condition that no claim for regularization of services can be entertained and his service can be dispensed with without any notice. He joined as such on 11-11-2002. No post was created / sanctioned in Ure said hostel and his wages were drawn from the income of SCERT hostel. The said society has been registered Under the Societies Registration Act 1860 vide registration No. 297/97 dated 2-6-1997. And Whereas, on the proposal dated 08-10-2002 of Principal SCERT Solan, the approval of Chairman, Finance Committee SCERT Society Solan vide letter dated 5-11-2002 was conveyed to engage Caretaker, attendant and sweeper subject to the condition that the ex-post-facto approval of Finance Committee will be obtained in the matter. Wages of these employee will be borne by the Society out of own funds. And Whereas, vide the proceedings of the meeting of finance committee of SCERT Society, which was held on 31-10-03 under the chairmanship of Chairman SCERT Society Solan, the following decision on item No.3 was taken:- "As far as Item No. 3 is concerned the members of the committee accorded their sanction to fill up the post of care taker and sweeper of the Hostel on year to year contract basis on a fixed salary of Rs. 5,000/- and 3,000/- per month respectively. It was decided that out of the present sanctioned posts of SCERT Society two posts i.e. one class III (Lab Attendant) and one class IV be surrendered and conversion of the same may be sought from the finance Department to Hostel of SCERT Society, so that their fixed salary could be drawn against the regular sanctioned/converted posts and not from the 8 2026:HHC:31619 income of the Hostel. The procedure for filling up of these posts may strictly be followed in accordance with the norms already approved by the Govt. and conveyed to the field from time to time." And Whereas, this matter was taken up by the Principal cum-member response to letter dated 16-10-2004 it was replied by the Director of Education vide letter dated 16- 12-2004 to take action as per society norms and constitution of SCERT as there was no provision for regularisation of employees engaged in society mode. And Whereas, the matter of regularization as caretaker in SCERT Hostel was taken up with the Govt. who vide letter dated 5-2-2013 conveyed that matter was taken up with the Finance Department who has observed that the SCERT is Society and staff of the Societies belongs to the Society only, which are a separate legal entity. Therefore, FD expenses its inability to concur in the proposal. Now therefore, after going through the record produced by the SCERT Solan and in view of facts and circumstances enumerated as above, the petitioner was engaged by the Society only which is a separate legal entity and there is no provision for regularisation of society hostel staff. There is no merit in the representation of petitioner and accordingly rejected.” 4. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court. 5. I heard learned Counsel for the petitioner as also learned Additional Advocate General and have also carefully gone through the pleadings as well as all the documents appended herewith. 9 2026:HHC:31619 6. The issue before this Court is as to whether the decision of the respondents of not regularizing the services of the petitioner on the ground that SCERT is a Society and staff of the said Society belongs to the Society only, which is a separate legal entity and therefore, the Finance Department expresses its inability to concur with the proposal of regularization of the services is sustainable in the law or not. 7. At this stage, it is relevant to refer to the judgment earlier passed by this Court in the case of the petitioner. A perusal of said judgment demonstrates that it was categorically held by this Court in the said judgment that it was sufficiently demonstrated on record that there was genuine need and requirement for the post of Hostel Caretaker in SCERT, Solan and Secretary (Education), to the Government of Himachal Pradesh had conveyed approval of Chairman, Finance Committee to engage Caretaker on daily wage basis vide communication dated 05.11.2002. The same was subject to only one condition that ex-post-facto approval of the Finance Committee was to be obtained. The Finance Committee admittedly accorded its sanction to the post of Caretaker and Sweeper in the Hostel and decision was taken by the Finance Committee to this effect in its meeting held on 31.10.2003. It is also evident from the said judgment that it was further decided that out of the sanctioned post of SCERT, two posts, i.e. one of Class-III Lab Attendant and one of Class-IV be surrendered and permission for conversion of the 10 2026:HHC:31619 same be sought from the Finance Department in order to enable SCERT to draw the fixed salary of Caretaker and Sweeper against regularly sanctioned/converted post and not from the income of the Hostel. 8. This Court had also held in its earlier judgment that SCERT being an instrumentality of the State Government is discharging public functions and that SCERT is nothing, but an extended wing of the Government. This Court also observed that under the garb of being a Society, it cannot use exploitative employment policies against its employees, so as to say that SCERT cannot be allowed to be used by the State for said exploitative policies. This Court also held that once the petitioner was appointed in SCERT after the grant of sanction by Chairman, Finance Committee, which appointment was subsequently ratified by the Finance Committee, then the respondents cannot be allowed to say that he will not be entitled for the benefit of regularization at par with similarly situated employees of the State, which act of the respondents was unjustified and antipathetic to the Constitutional Principles laid down in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 9. 9. In the backdrop of the observations made by this Court in its earlier judgment, now the rejection of the case of the petitioner on the same bogie that he was an employee of the Society and, therefore, his services could not be regularized, is not sustainable in 11 2026:HHC:31619 the eyes of law. 10. At this stage itself, this Court would like to refer to certain recent judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India on the issue of regularization of daily wagers as well as contract employees. 11. Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Jaggo Versus Union of India & Ors., 2024 SCC Online SC 3826, has been pleased to hold as under:- “………...10. Having given careful consideration to the submissions advanced and the material on record, we find that the appellants’ long and uninterrupted service, for periods extending well beyond ten years, cannot be brushed aside merely by labelling their initial appointments as part-time or contractual. The essence of their employment must be considered in the light of their sustained contribution, the integral nature of their work, and the fact that no evidence suggests their entry was through any illegal or surreptitious route. 11. The appellants, throughout their tenure, were engaged in performing essential duties that were indispensable to the day-to-day functioning of the offices of the Central Water Commission (CWC). Applicant Nos. 1, 2, and 3, as Safaiwalis, were responsible for maintaining hygiene, cleanliness, and a conducive working environment within the office premises. Their duties involved sweeping, dusting, and cleaning of floors, workstations, and common areas—a set of responsibilities that directly contributed to the basic operational functionality of the CWC. Applicant No. 5, in 12 2026:HHC:31619 the role of a Khallasi (with additional functions akin to those of a Mali), was entrusted with critical maintenance tasks, including gardening, upkeep of outdoor premises, and ensuring orderly surroundings. 12. Despite being labelled as “part-time workers,” the appellants performed these essential tasks on a daily and continuous basis over extensive periods, ranging from over a decade to nearly two decades. Their engagement was not sporadic or temporary in nature; instead, it was recurrent, regular, and akin to the responsibilities typically associated with sanctioned posts. Moreover, the respondents did not engage any other personnel for these tasks during the appellants’ tenure, underscoring the indispensable nature of their work. 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. 17. As for the argument relating to educational qualifications, we find it untenable in the present context. The nature of duties the appellants performed—cleaning, sweeping, dusting, and gardening—does not inherently 13 2026:HHC:31619 mandate formal educational prerequisites. It would be unjust to rely on educational criteria that were never central to their engagement or the performance of their duties for decades. Moreover, the respondents themselves have, by their conduct, shown that such criteria were not strictly enforced in other cases of regularization. The appellants’ long-standing satisfactory performance itself attests to their capability to discharge these functions, making rigid insistence on formal educational requirements an unreasonable hurdle.” In this judgment, Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that it is imperative for Government Departments to lead by example in providing fair and stable employment. Engaging workers on temporary basis for extended periods, especially when their roles are integral to the organization's functioning, not only contravenes international labour standards but also exposes the organization to legal challenges and undermines employee’s morale. By ensuring fair employment practices, Government institutions can reduce the burden of unnecessary litigation, promote job security, and uphold the principles of justice and fairness that they are meant to embody. This approach aligns with international standards and sets a positive precedent for the private sector to follow, thereby contributing to the overall betterment of labour practices in the country. Hon’ble Supreme Court also held that the pervasive misuse of temporary employment contracts reflects a broader systemic issue that adversely affects workers' rights and job security. In the private sector, the rise of the gig economy has led to an increase in 14 2026:HHC:31619 precarious employment arrangements, often characterized by lack of benefits, job security, and fair treatment. Such practices have been criticized for exploiting workers and undermining labour standards. 12. In Dharam Singh & Ors. Versus State of H.P. & Anr., 2025 SCC Online SC 1735 (2025 INSC 998), Hon’ble Supreme Court has been pleased to hold as under:- “……...17. Before concluding, we think it necessary to recall that the State (here referring to both the Union and the State governments) is not a mere market participant but a constitutional employer. It cannot balance budgets on the backs of those who perform the most basic and recurring public functions. Where work recurs day after day and year after year, establishment must reflect that reality in its sanctioned strength and engagement practices. The long-term extraction of regular labour under temporary labels corrodes confidence in public administration and offends the promise of equal protection. Financial stringency certainly has a place in public policy, but it is not a talisman that overrides fairness, reason and the duty to organise work on lawful lines. 18. Moreover, it must necessarily be noted that "ad- hocism" thrives where administration is opaque. The State Departments must keep and produce accurate establishment registers, muster rolls and outsourcing arrangements, and they must explain, with evidence, why they prefer precarious engagement over sanctioned posts where the work is perennial. If "constraint" is invoked, the record should show what alternatives were considered, why similarly placed workers were treated 15 2026:HHC:31619 differently, and how the chosen course aligns with Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Sensitivity to the human consequences of prolonged insecurity is not sentimentality. It is a constitutional discipline that should inform every decision affecting those who keep public offices running.” 13. In Bhola Nath Versus the State of Jharkhand & Ors., 2026 SCC Online SC 129 (2026 INSC 99), Hon’ble Supreme Court has been pleased to hold as under:- “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, (2024) 16 SCC 598 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: 16 2026:HHC:31619 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." 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. 13.1. Another Constitution Bench in State of Karnataka v. Umadevi, (2006) 4 SCC 1 cautioned that the doctrine of legitimate expectation cannot ordinarily be extended to persons whose appointments are 17 2026:HHC:31619 temporary, casual or contractual in nature. The relevant extract of the judgment reads as follows: - "47. When a person enters a temporary employment or gets engagement as a contractual or casual worker and the engagement is not based on a proper selection as recognised by the reievant rules or procedure, he is aware of the consequences of the appointment being temporary, casual or contractual in nature. Such a person cannot invoke the theory of legitimate expectation for being confirmed in the post when an appointment to the post could be made only by following a proper procedure for selection and in cases concerned, in consultation with the Public Service Commission. Therefore, the theory of legitimate expectation cannot be successfully advanced by temporary. contractual or casual employees. It cannot also be held that the State has held out any promise while engaging these persons either to continue them where they are or to make them permanent. The State cannot constitutionally make such a promise. It is also obvious that the theory cannot be invoked to seek a positive relief of being made permanent in the post." However, this Court in Umadevi (supra) clarified that the bar against invocation of the doctrine of legitimate expectation applies only to those temporary, contractual or casual employees whose engagement was not preceded by a proper selection process in accordance with the extant rules. Consequently, where such engagement is made after following a due and lawful selection procedure, there is no absolute bar in law preventing such employees from invoking the doctrine of legitimate expectation. 18 2026:HHC:31619 Limits on Perpetual Contractual Engagements: 13.2. In the present case, the respondent-State had engaged the services of the appellants on sanctioned posts since the year 2012. It was only towards the end of the year 2022 that the respondents communicated that no further extension of the appellants' engagement was likely to be granted. 13.3. In our considered opinion, the aforesaid action is not only vitiated by arbitrariness but is also in clear derogation of the equality principles enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution. The respondent-State initially engaged the appellants in their youth to discharge public duties and functions. Having rendered long and dedicated service, the appellants cannot now be left to fend for themselves, particularly when the employment opportunities that may have been available to them a decade ago are no longer accessible owing to age constraints. 13.4. We are unable to discern any rational basis for the respondent-State's decision to discontinue the appellants after nearly ten years of continuous service. We are conscious that the symbiotic-relationship between the appellants and the respondent-State was mutually beneficial, the State derived the advantage of the appellants' experience and institutional familiarity, while the appellants remained in public service. In such circumstances, any departure from a long-standing practice of renewal, particularly one that frustrates the legitimate expectation of the employees, ought to be supported by cogent reasons recorded in a speaking order. 19 2026:HHC:31619 13.5. Such a decision must necessarily be a conscious and reasoned one. An employee who has satisfactorily discharged his duties over several years and has been granted repeated extensions cannot, overnight, be treated as surplus or undesirable. We are unable to accept the justification advanced by the respondents as the obligation of the State, as a model employer, extends to fair treatment of its employees irrespective of whether their engagement is contractual or regular. 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, 2024 SCC Online SC 3826 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, 2025 SCC Online SC 221 and Vinod Kumar v. Union of India, (2024) 9 SCC 327 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 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. 20 2026:HHC:31619 13.8. In Dharam Singh v. State of U.P. 2025 SCC Online SC 1735, 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. 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 careers and livelihood of such part-time and contractual employees are guided by fairness and reason. 13.10. In the aforesaid backdrop, we are unable to persuade ourselves to accept the respondent-State's contention that the mere contractual nomenclature of the appellants' engagement denudes them of constitutional protection. The State, having availed of the appellants' services on sanctioned posts for over a decade pursuant to a due process of selection and having consistently acknowledged their satisfactory performance, cannot, in the absence of cogent reasons or a speaking decision, bruptly discontinue such engagement by taking refuge behind formal contractual lauses. Such action is manifestly arbitrary, inconsistent with the obligation of the ate to act as a model employer, 21 2026:HHC:31619 and fails to withstand scrutiny under Article 14 of me Constitution. 14. Recently, this Court by placing reliance upon the above mentioned judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in CWP No.5784 of 2023, titled Manju Devi Versus State of H.P. and others, has held as under:- “19. In light of the fact that the petitioner is performing his duties as a Class-IV daily wager with respondent No.3-Society since 09.01.2015, the same demonstrates that there is permanency attached with the nature of work which is being extracted from the petitioner by the said Society. That being so, obviously it cannot be the case of the respondents that as there is no permanent work available with the Society, the services of the petitioner cannot be regularized. In fact, this Court cannot ignore that before the services of the petitioner were converted on daily wage basis, he was serving the same Society on part time basis since the year 2005, meaning thereby that the petitioner has been serving the respondent-Society firstly on part time basis and thereafter, on daily wage basis for almost 21 years. 20. Under these circumstances, this Court disagrees with the respondents that because the petitioner is serving respondent No.3, which is a Society, she does not has a right of regularization in terms of the Policies circulated by the State Government from time to time on the regularization of daily wage workers. It is not in dispute that various Corporations and Societies owned and controlled by the State which per se are not Government Departments, are also regularizing the services of the daily wage staff 22 2026:HHC:31619 engaged by them by following the Policies of regularization of the State. 21. In the present case, respondent No.3, as observed hereinabove, came into existence after the Deputy Commissioner concerned was called upon to constitute a Society by Director, Small Savings, Himachal Pradesh. Thus, it is the Governmental action which resulted in the formation of the Society. Further, in terms of Annexure P-10, which has been referred by me hereinabove, Principal Secretary (Finance), to the Government of Himachal Pradesh wrote to all concerned that whereas new Societies shall not engage staff including temporary/ daily wage without the approval of the Government, the existing Societies were also instructed to carry out necessary amendments in the Memorandum of Association/ Articles of Association of the said Societies. This further demonstrates the deep and pervasive control of the State Government over these Societies. Their members are all Government officers, ex-officers. 22. Simply because the Small Savings Department itself was not interested to do the work which is being carried out through the Societies, this does not mean that said Societies are not a limb of the Government per se. 23. Therefore, the daily wage staff engaged therein cannot be discriminated vis-a-vis the other staff engaged in various other Departments of the State. The daily wage staff serving with such Societies also has a legitimate expectation of regularization in terms of the Policies of regularization circulated by the State Government from time to time and whether or not such 23 2026:HHC:31619 staff has to be regularized, cannot depend upon the whims and fancies of the Authorities. 24. The Society is an extended arm of the Department working under the Chairman, who is the Deputy Commissioner of the District. In these facts, the act of the respondents of not regularizing the services of the petitioner on the pretext that he happens to be an employee of respondent No.3-Society, which is not a Government Department, is held to be bad in law. It is held that as respondent No.3 is just an extended limb of the Small Savings Department of the State of Himachal Pradesh, though it is registered and functioning as a Society, the same is also bound by the Policies of regularization of the State Government relating to daily wage employees. 25. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. Said Society and Government cannot be permitted to continue to engage staff on daily wage services for eternity without any assurance of regularization and with an uncertain future. This is not acceptable more so in the light of the latest judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court, referred hereinabove. The respondents are directed to regularize the services of the petitioner upon completion of five years of daily wage service with 240 days in each calendar year as calculated w.e.f. 09.01.2015, in terms of regularization Policy of the State Government, dated 22.04.2020. Regularization be conferred upon the petitioner w.e.f. 22.04.2020, i.e. the date when relevant regularization Policy was circulated by the State Government. In case there is any requirement of a creation of regular post to regularize the services of the petitioner, then needful shall be done by all the 24 2026:HHC:31619 respondents. The regularization of the petitioner shall be notional as from 22.04.2020, upto the date of passing of this judgment and thereafter, regular benefits shall be conferred upon the petitioner. The benefit of regularization w.e.f. 22.04.2020 shall be inclusive of all consequential benefits/though notional upto to the passing of the judgment, including seniority. The Court places on record its appreciation for the assistance rendered by learned Counsel for the petitioner in the adjudication of the case.” 15. The findings returned by this Court in Manju Devi’s case are applicable to the facts of this case also. Herein also, the only ground as to why regularization is being denied to the petitioner is that he is an employee of a Society. This Court reiterates the observations made by it in its earlier judgment in the case of the present petitioner that regularization cannot be denied to the petitioner on the ground that he happens to be an employee of the Society, because the said Society is not an independent Society, but is a Society which is owned and controlled by the Government. This Society is nothing but an extended arm of the Government and is performing the duties which otherwise have to be performed by the Government. It discharges public functions. Besides this, herein also, the very fact that the petitioner is serving with the respondent- Society though on daily wage basis since the year 2002, demonstrates that there is permanancy attached to the work of the petitioner, otherwise his services would not have been retained by the Society for almost two decades now. The petitioner at the time of 25 2026:HHC:31619 filing of the petition was 54 years old, meaning thereby that at this age, he otherwise cannot leave the job and seek employment in any other Department. After having given two decades of his life to the respondent-Society which is a Government owned Society, the least he expects and deserves is the regularization of his services, that too from due date, so that there is an element of certainty as far as the remaining service career of the petitioner is concerned. 16. Accordingly, in light of discussion made hereinabove, this writ petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 18.06.2025 (Annexure-P-8), passed by respondent No.2 is quashed and set aside. The act of the respondents of not regularizing the services of the petitioner on the pretext that the petitioner is an employee of the Society is held to be bad in law. The respondents are directed to regularize the services of the petitioner from the date of filng of O.A.No.586 of 2015, with all consequential benefits, both monetary as well as seniority-wise. 17. With these observations, the petition stands disposed of, so also, pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge July 30, 2026 (Rishi)