2026:HHC:34196 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.1295 of 2019 a/w CWP No.1296 of 2019 Reserved on : 11.08.2026 Decided on : 14.08.2026 Uploaded on:14.08.2026 1. CWP No.1295 of 2019 Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Ltd. and Ors. ...Petitioners Versus Karpoor Kumar Sharma and Anr. …Respondents. 2. CWP No.1296 of 2019 Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Ltd. and Ors. ...Petitioners Versus Layak Ram Sharma and Anr. …Respondents. Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner(s) : Ms. Sunita Sharma, Sr. Advocate with M/s Harshita Dogra and Manisha Kumari, Advocates, in CWP No.1295 of 2019. Mr. Virender Kanwar, Advocate, in CWP No.1296 of 2019. For the respondent(s) : Mr. Rajiv Rai, Advocate, in both the petitions. 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes 2 2026:HHC:34196 Bipin Chander Negi, Judge These two writ petitions arise out of a common judgment dated 03.04.2018 passed in T.A. Nos.4754 and 4567 of 2015. Hence, they are being taken up together. 2. The writ petitioners herein were the respondents before the erstwhile State Administrative Tribunal. By virtue of the impugned judgment, the writ petitioners have been directed to regularize the services of the present respondents/original applicants before the erstwhile Tribunal, with all consequential benefits. 3. For deciding the present petitions facts detailed in the original application preferred by Karpur Kumar Sharma are being noticed. In the original application so preferred, it has been averred that Karpur Kumar Sharma is a trained electrician. It had further been averred that the said individual had been awarded the work of an Electrician for the maintenance of electrical supply in residential/non-residential buildings of HPSEB, Jeori, through various work orders with effect from 01.05.1996 to 30.06.2003. To demonstrate the same, work orders have been placed on record as Annexure A-1 (page 26 of the paper book). Other than the aforesaid, 3 2026:HHC:34196 experience certificate given by the Assistant Engineer, Kashang Construction Division Sub-Division No. VIII, HPSEB, Jeori, has been placed on record as Annexure A-5/T (page 61 of the paper-book) to show that Karpur Kumar Sharma had been working on a contract basis with effect from 06/1996 to 07/2001. 4. Further, in the original application preferred by Karpur Kumar Sharma, it has been averred that post 30.06.2003, the services of the applicant were engaged through a contractor. Qua the aforesaid fact (Annexure A-2, page 28 of the paper-book) has been placed on record. 5. In the aforesaid facts, by way of the original application preferred, direction was being sought to initially grant status of a daily wage electrician followed by regularization of the services with the respondent-Board. To buttress the contention raised, reliance was being placed on a similar case of one Shri Om Prakash mentioned in Annexure A-2, who had been deployed on daily wage muster roll as a JCB operator on the approval of the Secretary, HPSEB. 6. In the response filed by the writ petitioners before the erstwhile Tribunal, the period of engagement of Karpur 4 2026:HHC:34196 Kumar Sharma was not disputed. It was contended that work had been awarded to Karpur Kumar Sharma solely on a contract basis. Work had been awarded as lowest rates had been quoted by Karpur Kumar Sharma. It has been categorically stated in the reply that Karpur Kumar Sharma had never been engaged on a daily wage basis or work-charge basis to execute the work. Insofar as parity with Om Prakash is concerned, the same was categorically denied. It was submitted in the reply that Om Prakash had been engaged on a muster roll basis as a JCB operator, as services of Om Prakash were required on the project site, whereas insofar as Karpur Kumar Sharma was concerned, his services were only required for maintenance work of residential houses at the project site. When such work was available, work orders were issued in favour of the applicant as and when Karpur Kumar Sharma quoted the lowest rates. Based on the aforesaid, parity with Om Prakash was categorically denied. 7. In the rejoinder filed, Item No.24.08 discussed in the 24th meeting of the Managing Committee (WTM) held on 22.05.2010 was placed on record as Annexure P-11 (page 54 of the paper-book). The same pertained to regularization of 5 2026:HHC:34196 individuals engaged on a work order basis. At the said meeting, it was decided that the threshold of 20 years of service on work order basis be fixed for considering such cases for regularization on a sympathetic basis in the HPSEB. It was made clear that to be considered for regularization, requisite qualifications as provided in the R&P Rules were imperative. Details/list of individuals engaged on work order basis for execution of the Ganvi Hydro Electric Project (HEP) Stage-II was also placed on record along with Annexure P-11 (page 56), wherein the names of Karpur Kumar Sharma and Layak Ram figure. 8. Other than the aforesaid, it would be appropriate to refer to letter dated 24.08.2013 (page 74 of the paper- book), wherein request for engagement as electricians on permanent basis in the respondent-Board after putting in more than 17 years of service on work order basis has been dealt with. In the said letter, the names of Karpur Kumar Sharma and Layak Ram are mentioned. In the same, it has been made clear that before converting the services of the individuals named therein from work order to either muster 6 2026:HHC:34196 roll or regular basis, the said individuals will have to withdraw cases filed by them in various courts/forum. 9. However, subsequent to the aforesaid, vide letter dated 30.10.2014 (page 78 of the paper-book), decision taken on Item No.24.08 dated 22.05.2010 (page 54 of the paper- book) regarding regularizing the workers, who had rendered 20 years of service on ‘work order basis’ was withdrawn. 10. Subsequent thereto, the impugned judgment had been passed by the erstwhile Administrative Tribunal on 03.04.2018. Operation whereof had been stayed vide order dated 17.06.2019. Interestingly, when response to the present writ petitions was filed, the respondent herein along with the reply placed on record letter dated 30.07.2019 (page 109-110 of the paper book), whereby regularization of six individuals engaged on a work order basis had been passed. 11. It is in the aforesaid backdrop that order dated 19.08.2025 had been passed. The same reads as under: “It has been brought to our notice that regularization of work order employees has been ordered by the Tribunal on 03.04.2018, on the basis of agenda No.24.08 dated 22.05.2010 (Annexure P-11). 2. Counsel for the Board on the other hand has pointed out that the said agenda was already withdrawn on 7 2026:HHC:34196 30.10.2014 (page 141 in CWP No.1296 of 2019) on the ground that the said workers are not the employees of the Board and thus it is submitted that order is not sustainable. 3. Faced with this situation, counsel for the petitioner in CWP No.1295 of 2019 has placed on record order dated 30.07.2019, whereby 6 Clerks, who have been deployed on work order basis, have been granted the benefit of regularization of service. A Copy of the said order has also been supplied to the counsel for the Board. 4. The employees in question who have now been granted the benefit of regularization as pointed out their cases were apparently rejected earlier, which would be clear from page 87 of CWP No.1295 of 2019. 5. Perusal of communication dated 24.08.2013 would also go on to show that apparently a proposal as such was made for withdrawal of the litigation, so that regularization could be done. 6. It has also been brought to our notice that on 24.08.2013 (page 74 in CWP No.1295 of 2019) during the pendency of the proceedings apparently there was consideration that if the cases are withdrawn the needful would be done. 7. Accordingly, let an affidavit be filed by the competent authority as to whether there is any policy decision for regularization of work order employees, on the basis of which, the benefits have been given to the persons vide order dated 30.07.2019; and as to whether there is any legal impediment as such to regularise the present employees who have worked with the Board w.e.f. 8 2026:HHC:34196 1996 till 2014. It is now brought to our notice that their services were dispensed with during the pendency of the proceedings before the Tribunal. 8. List on 22.09.2025.” 12. In pursuance to the aforesaid order, affidavit by Shri Dharmender Singh, presently working as Under Secretary (HRD), HPSEBL, has been filed. Relevant extract of the affidavit reads as follow:- “That some of the persons who names were appearing in Agenda Item No. 24.08 dated 22.05.2010 and others, again represented for consideration of their regularisation, therefore, the matter was again placed before the competent authority-Board of Directors for consideration in its meeting held on 19.7.2019 against Agenda Item No. 38.17 wherein the following decision was taken: "The Board of Directors discussed the Memorandum in detail and approved the regularisation of services of 6 Nos of persons (Except Sr. No.6 i.e. Sh. Chaman Kumar) who have been deployed on work order basis and have completed more than 17 years. The Board of Directors also directed that HPSEBL shall issue the necessary directions to all officers/official that no person shall be deployed on work order basis or otherwise without approval of competent authority in future. In the cases of failure/ non- adherence of directions, the amount paid to work 9 2026:HHC:34196 charge etc. shall be recovered from the defaulter employee/ officer/ official" 13. Detail of work orders placed on record as Annexure A-1 (page 26 of the paper book) depict that Karpur Kumar Sharma a trained electrician (relevant certificates have been appended with the T.A) had been awarded the work of an Electrician for the maintenance of electrical supply in residential/non-residential buildings of HPSEB at Jeori. The period of engagement through various work orders w.e.f. 01.05.1996 to 30.06.2003 mentioned in the T.A has not been denied in the reply filed to such averment. The experience certificate given by the Assistant Engineer, Kashang Construction Division Sub-Division No. VIII, HPSEBL, Jeori, Annexure A-5/T (page 61 of the paper-book) further fortifies the fact that Karpur Kumar Sharma had been working on a contract basis w.e.f. 06/1996 to 07/2001. 14. The names of Karpur Kumar Sharma and Layak Ram are mentioned in letter dated 24.08.2013 (page 74 of the paper-book), wherein request for engagement as electricians on permanent basis in the respondent-Board after putting in more than 17 years of service on work order basis has been 10 2026:HHC:34196 dealt with. thereby admitting their continuous long period of service on a work order basis. However as per the said letter before converting the services of the individuals named therein from work order to either muster roll or regular basis, the said individuals were required to withdraw cases filed by them in various courts/forum. 15. The previous precedent for regularization of service of individuals engaged on work order basis was item No.24.08 discussed in the 24th meeting of the Managing Committee (WTM) held on 22.05.2010 was placed on record as Annexure P-11 (page 54 of the paper-book) wherein the threshold of 20 years of service on work order basis had been fixed for being considered for regularization on a sympathetic basis in the HPSEB. Letter dated 24.08.2013 (page 74 of the paper-book) mentioned supra in paragraph 14 was a natural corollary to the aforesaid decision dated 22.05.2010. 16. However, when the erstwhile tribunal passed the impugned judgement dated 03.04.2018 it was never brought to the notice of the erstwhile tribunal that decision dated 22.05.2010 Annexure P-11 (page 54 of the paper-book) stood 11 2026:HHC:34196 withdrawn vide letter dated 30.10.2014 (page 78 of the paper-book). The operation of the impugned judgement dated 03.04.2018 had been stayed by this court vide order dated 17.06.2019. 17. Interestingly during the pendency of the present petition, vide letter dated 30.07.2019 (pages 109-110 of the paper book), regularization of six individuals engaged on a work order basis has been passed. The said act of the writ petitioners prompted this court to pass order dated 19.08.2025 (reproduced supra in paragraph 11) in response where to an affidavit of an Under Secretary (HRD), HPSEBL, has been filed (relevant extract whereof has been reproduced supra in paragraph 12). 18. As per the affidavit filed representations for consideration of regularization of individuals engaged on work order basis and whose names existed in Agenda Item No. 24.08 dated 22.05.2010 Annexure P-11 (page 54 of the paper-book) had been received. The same was placed before the Board. The Board fixed a benchmark of 17 years of work order service for being considered for regularization. In the 12 2026:HHC:34196 aforesaid facts and attending circumstances, moreso in light of regularization of six individuals engaged on a work order basis vide letter dated 30.07.2019 (pages 109-110 of the paper book), we see no reason for the writ petitioners to object to the regularization ordered by the erstwhile Tribunal vide the impugned judgement dated 03.04.2018 despite withdrawal of decision taken on Item No.24.08 dated 22.05.2010 (page 54 of the paper-book) regarding regularizing workers who had rendered 20 years of service on work order basis vide letter dated 30.10.2014 (page 78 of the paper-book). The writ petitioners cannot be permitted to act whimsically. Similarly situated individuals engaged on work order basis need to be dealt with on the same parameters. Acting otherwise would be an infraction of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 19. For the aforesaid reasons, the present civil writ petitions being devoid of any merit are dismissed, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. (G.S. Sandhawalia) (Bipin Chander Negi) Chief Justice Judge 14th August, 2026 (Gaurav Rawat)