2026:HHC:6547 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWPOA No. 2677 of 2019 Decided on : 09.03.2026 ____________________________________________________________ Tara Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of HP & others ...Respondents ____________________________________________________________ Coram Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the petitioner: Mr. Prem P. Chauhan, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Amandeep Sharma, Additional Advocate General. Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge (Oral) By way of present petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following substantive relief:- “(a) to issue a writ of mandamus, appropriate writ, order or direction in nature thereof, directing the respondents to deem the petitioner to have been appointed on regular basis with effect from 25.07.2003 for all purposes and intents and with all consequential benefits along with arrears and interest thereon @ 18% per annum from due date till payment of the same to the petitioner.” 2. As per the pleadings in the writ petition, the petitioner has served in Punjab Regiment of the Indian Army for 15 years from 19.02.1974 to 31.12.1989. At the time of discharge from Army, he was serving in the rank of Havildar. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2026:HHC:6547 3. After discharge from Army, the petitioner got himself registered with the Employment Exchange as well as with the Employment Officer Ex-Servicemen Cell, Hamirpur for getting an employment in the civil against the quota reserved for the Ex-Servicemen. Vide letter dated 07.06.2003 (Annexure P-1), the name of the petitioner was sponsored for his appointment as Driver with the respondent-Department. After receipt of the aforesaid communication dated 07.06.2003, the petitioner was offered appointment by respondent No.2 on 25.07.2003 (Annexure P-2), but on contract basis for a period of two years. The respondent-Department framed the Recruitment and Promotion Rules known as Himachal Pradesh, Social Justice & Empowerment Department, Driver, Class-III (Non- Gazetted), Recruitment & Promotion Rules, 2007 (for short R&P Rules), which were notified on 17.12.2007 (Annexure P- 5) and as per clause 10 thereof, the post of Driver is to be filled up 100% by direct recruitment or on contract basis. 4. The petitioner had earlier came before this Court by way of filing the petition, bearing CWP No. 225 of 2010, titled, Tara Singh vs State of HP & Ors., claiming therein that a writ of mandamus may be issued directing the 3 2026:HHC:6547 respondents to regularize his services on the post of Driver in accordance with the R&P Rules. The said petition was disposed of on 03.03.2010 directing the second respondent to look into annexure P-7, appended with the writ petition and take appropriate action in the matter expeditiously within a period of two months. After passing the aforesaid direction by this Court, respondent No.2 had rejected the claim of the petitioner, vide office order dated 10.05.2010, stating therein that the petitioner was appointed on the post of driver on contract basis from Ex-Servicemen quota for a period of two years at a fixed salary of Rs.4500/- per month and he joined his duties on 30.07.2003. His contract was renewed from 30.07.2005 to 29.07.2007, on the same terms and conditions as there was no provision of revision of salary of contractual employees. As per fresh R&P Rules notified on 17.12.2007, the contractual emoluments of driver were fixed at Rs.4995/- per month and a provision for annual increase of Rs.110/- was also made. The contract of the petitioner was also renewed from 30.07.2007 to 29.07.2008 at the fixed emoluments of Rs.4995/- per month. Since the petitioner had completed one year on 29.07.2008, he was held entitled to the aforesaid annual 4 2026:HHC:6547 increase from 30.07.2008. The representation of the petitioner was decided and it was directed that emoluments of the petitioner may be re-fixed on pre-revised scales and arrears be paid to him from 30.07.2008 to 01.12.2009, when as per the new scales, emoluments of the contractual employees had been fixed at minimum of pay band. 5. The petitioner has approached this Court by way of the present petition stating therein that the claim of the petitioner had partly been allowed, whereas since there were no provision for making appointment on contract basis before notifying the R&P Rules dated 17.12.2007 (Annexure P-5), the respondents ought to have offered the appointment to him on regular basis from the date of his initial appointment on contract basis. 6. The respondents filed reply and stated that the petitioner was appointed on 25.07.2003, for a period of two years purely on contract basis and further the petitioner had executed an agreement before joining the post. Since the respondents had sent requisition for filling up a post of Driver on contract basis under Ex-Servicemen quota to the Secretary, State Selection Committee-cum-Director, Sainik Welfare Department, he was rightly offered the appointment 5 2026:HHC:6547 on the post of Driver, and once the petitioner had accepted the offer after going through the terms and conditions laid down in the appointment order, the petitioner has no right to claim appointment on regular basis. Further it has been averred that since the petitioner had not completed 08 years service on 31.03.2010, his case could not have been considered for regularization. 7. I have heard Mr. Prem P. Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Amandeep Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondents- State and also gone through the record carefully. 8. The controversy raised in the present petition is in a narrow campus. It is not denied by the respondents that they had notified the R&P Rules on 17.12.2007, whereby a provision has been made for appointment of 100% by direct recruitment or on contract basis. Earlier to these recruitment Rules, there was no provision in the Rules to offer appointment as Driver on contract basis. No doubt the petitioner had accepted the appointment on contract basis, but since he had no choice at that time, he had joined with the respondents as Driver on contract basis. It was for the respondents to offer the appointment to the petitioner as 6 2026:HHC:6547 Driver on regular basis as per the Rules prevalent at that relevant time, which did not stipulate any provision to offer appointment on contract basis. 9. It is by now settled by catena of judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the posts are to be filled up, as per the eligibility criteria and conditions in the R&P Rules. Since there was no provision in the R&P Rules to offer appointment on contract basis, the respondents cannot deny appointment to the petitioner on regular basis. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed heavy reliance upon the judgment of this Court dated 28.05.2024, passed in CWP No. 8200 of 2021, titled, Bachan Singh & others vs. State of H.P. & others., wherein this Court after considering the R&P Rules had given directions to the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioners in view of the judgments dated 10.01.2024 passed by this Court in CWP No. 6446 of 2023, titled, Priyanka Nagu vs. State of H.P. & another, and judgment dated 13.05.2024, passed in CWPOA No. 1453 of 2020, titled, Himachal Government Teachers Union and others vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others. 11. As per the judgment passed in CWPOA No. 1453 7 2026:HHC:6547 of 2020, this Court had held that though the petitioners were offered the appointment on contract basis on the basis of advertisement, but since there was no provision in the R&P Rules for offering appointment on contract basis, they were held entitled for wages, which were payable to the regularly appointed teachers. 12. In the present case also, there was no provision in the R&P Rules in the year, 2003 to offer appointment on contract basis, when the petitioner was offered the appointment as Driver on contract basis and thus the petitioner is entitled to be considered as regular appointee from the date of his joining with the respondent- Department. 13. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to consider the petitioner as regular appointee w.e.f. 30.07.2003, with all consequential benefits, but on notional basis and the actual benefits be paid to him from the date of filing the present petition. However, no orders as to cost. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. 09 th March, 2026 ( Jiya Lal Bhardwaj ) (Anurag) Judge