IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA LPA No.281 of 2026 Decided on : _11.08.2026 State of H.P and others ... Appellant Versus Dr. Anuradha …Respondents. Coram Hon’ble Mr. Gurmeet Singh Sandhawalia, Chief Justice. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the appellant : Mr. Rakesh Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General. G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice (Oral) The State seeks consideration of the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge in CWPOA No. 3621 of 2019, titled as Anuradha Thakur vs. State of HP. and others decided on 10.09.2025, whereby the respondent-petitioner was directed to be regularized as per the terms of the Government policy dated 4th May, 2017, within a period of four weeks from the date of passing of the judgment, and she was also held entitled to consequential benefits. The speaking order dated 19th December, 2017 (Annexure P-13), whereby the relief sought had been denied, was accordingly quashed. 2. A perusal of the order, whereby the State had denied her regularization, shows that the same was on the pretext that she was a specific contractual employee under the National Rural Health Mission, now the National Health Mission, and had been paid from NRHM funds, and could not be covered or equated with a contractual employee. 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes -2- Accordingly the Special Secretary (Health) to the Government, while rejecting the representation which was decided in pursuance of the earlier order passed by the erstwhile Tribunal in OA No. 2007 of 2017 on 12th July, 2017 came to the conclusion that the employee, who was holding the qualification of Bachelor of Dental Surgery (BDS), was initially appointed as Medical Officer on contract, specifically for a period of one year. However, she was transferred on 16th April, 2013 to the office of the Principal Medical Officer, Shimla, under a Programme Officer under NRHM. It was clarified by another order dated 14th June, 2013 that the designation would be NRHM Consultant, and her salary and allowances would be payable from the said fund at the rate of ₹40,000/- per month. 3. In such circumstances, a finding has been given that she had neither been appointed to work on contract basis in the Government Department, nor paid from the State Treasury or Government Treasury, and therefore, could not be granted the benefit of regularization. The learned Single Judge rejected the said findings on the ground that an advertisement had been issued by the Director, Health Services and, as per the specific pleadings, in pursuance to which the petitioner had been appointed. The appointment order dated 14.09.2012 is none other than that issued by the Special Secretary, Health to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, in the name of the Governor, and it would go on to show that the appointment was made after counselling on purely contractual basis at a sum of Rs.26,250/- per month lump sum plus incentive. It is not disputed that the said amount was the amount -3- specified for contractual employees as per the Himachal Pradesh Medical Civil Services, Medical Officer Class-I (Gazetted) Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 2012 (Annexure A-1), and in view of Clause 15-A, there is a provision for appointment to the post on contract basis, and the honorarium fixed for MBBS Medical Officer was ₹26,250/-. It was in such circumstances that the learned Single Judge has apparently held that the initial appointment on 14.09.2012 was under the Government contract and, therefore, came to the conclusion that the order under challenge was not justified. 4. A perusal of the pleadings filed before the erstwhile H.P. State Administrative Tribunal, which eventually came to be transferred to this Court and decided by the learned Single Judge, would go on to show that apparently a team of doctors led by Dr. Naresh Mehta visited several places in Punjab, Jammu & Kashmir, Uttar Pradesh and Chandigarh, and conducted walk-in interviews for the post, and the employee, as such, had been interviewed by the aforementioned team of doctors at Chandigarh. The appointment order reads as under:- “The Governor, Himachal Pradesh is pleased to offer appointment to the following doctor after counseling 2012 purely on contract basis for a period of one year at a fixed remuneration of Rs.26250/- lump sum P.M. plus incentive as admissible vide letter No. Health-A-B(8)/1/2007 dated 21st July, 2012, which will be met from NRHM, in the Health Institutions mentioned against her name on the terms and conditions contained in the enclosed agreement proforma (which can be down loaded from the official website of Health Deptt. i.e. hphealth.nic.in) in the public interest:- Sr. No . Employee Code & Name and Father name DOB Designatio n Place of posting 1. 24589- 19/01/198 Medical Shimla -4- ANURADHA S/O D/O JAGDISH CHAND VPO NAROLA TEHSIL SARKAGHAT , District Mandi (Himachal Pradesh) 2 Officer National Rural Health Mission, H.P.Shiml a The above mentioned officer(s) is/are directed to join at the place(s) of posting immediately and send joining report to this Deptt. through proper channel. By Order Secretary (Health) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh." 5 In these circumstances, it does not lie in the mouth, as such, of the State to resile from its own appointment. The contract further entered into between the Government of Himachal Pradesh, though the Joint Secretary, Health on 11th October, 2012 would go on to show that the amount payable would be met from NRHM funds. It was only an arrangement that was made by the State as to how the candidates, as such, were to be paid. The argument which is now sought to be raised by placing reliance on the additional documents, which has also been noticed by the learned Single Judge, regarding notification dated 14th June, 2013, would go on to show that she would be allegedly treated as an NRHM Consultant, and the salary had been hiked to ₹40,000/- per month. The same was apparently only for the purpose of funding, under which the said notification had been issued to give the benefit, as such, as the State was in receipt of the said amount under the said heading. Employment having been made as such by the State, it now cannot be -5- washed away on the pretext that the person was an employee of the Union of India. 6. In the reply filed before the Tribunal also, no such objection had been taken that she was an employee of the Union of India, and that in the O.A. as such, interested parties had not been impleaded or that the State Tribunal would have no jurisdiction. However, an averment had been made that she had not been paid any salary from the State Budget of the Government or Office, but it could not have affected the appointment order issued in the name of the Governor, and there is no valid reason to fix the contractual amount otherwise than as per the amount prescribed under the R&P Rules. 7. The learned Single Judge, therefore, rightly came to the conclusion that the earlier agreement dated 11th October, 2012 could not be rendered ineffective by a subsequent notification whereby her salary was hiked to ₹40,000/- per month only on account of the fact that the amount was received from NRHM funds. The settled principle is that the right to regularization is also on the basis of a policy, which is at page No. 129 of the paper book, and is thus applicable. The policy dated 4th May, 2017 would go on to show that the services of contractual employees who had completed 3 years of continuous service as on 31st March, 2017 were to be regularized. It was in such circumstances that the employee had approached the Administrative Tribunal and got direction for consideration accordingly, and therefore, the rejection is not on any valid basis, as noticed above, that the employer was not the State itself. -6- 8. The State itself, for recruiting doctors for its needs by sending a special team at Chandigarh, Jammu & Kashmir, Punjab, etc., had selected the employees and cannot now resile and deny the benefit to persons who have served the State from the year 2012. The learned Single Judge has also noticed, as a specific plea was taken, that there was also violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India as similarly situated incumbents had been regularized in terms of the State Government Policy, while placing reliance on the order dated 23rd May, 2017 (Annexure A-9), wherein it would go on to show that as many as 12 Medical Officers, who had completed 3 years of service had been given the said benefit, many of whom had joined much later than the petitioner in the year 2014, and therefore, the petitioner cannot be denied the said benefit.. 9. Reliance had rightly been placed upon the policy as in State of Karnataka & Ors. v. Umadevi (3) & Ors., (2006) 4 SCC 1, the Apex Court has held that the rights of regularization flow from the policy, and therefore, the learned Single Judge was justified in passing the order of regularization while quashing the order dated 19th December, 2017. The learned Single Judge has rightly relied upon the law laid down by the Apex Court in Dharam Singh v. State of U.P., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1735, Shripal & Anr. v. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 221. 10. In Jaggo v. Union of India, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826, the principle, as was initially laid down also, of legitimate expectation, on the basis of a policy, also supports the relief sought. Similarly situated -7- doctors having been granted the benefit of having served 3 years on contractual basis, have got the benefit, and therefore, there is no valid reason, as such, to deny the petitioner the said benefit, especially on account of the fact that the appointment order was issued by the State itself. Resultantly, the present appeal is dismissed, along with the pending miscellaneous applications, if any. (G.S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice (Bipin Chander Negi) Judge 11th August, 2026 Tarun Singh