( 2026:HHC:6553 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWPOA No.2612 of 2019 Decided on: 9th March, 2026 Chaman Lal .......Petitioner versus State of H.P. and another ...Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr.Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner: Mr.I.D. Bali, Senior Advocate with Mr.J.D. Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr.Sumit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General. Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge (Oral) The petitioner, by way of present petition, has laid challenge to the office order dated 23.09.2013 (Annexure P-3) passed by respondent No.2, whereby the claim of the petitioner for appointment on the post of Chowkidar has been rejected, since his case was not covered as per policy dated 27.02.2004 or any other policy. 2. As per the pleadings in the writ petition, the petitioner has averred that he was engaged as Revenue Chowkidar at Patwar Circle Nabahi Tehsil Sarkaghat, District Mandi, H.P. in the year 1997. He was initially engaged by the then Patwari of Nabahi Patwar Circle namely Shri Inder Pal and the concerned Kanungo of the aforesaid 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. ( 2026:HHC:6553 ) 2 Patwar Circle Shri Hem Raj Negi. However, no written appointment letter was issued to him. The petitioner had been discharging all the duties of Revenue Chowkidar, such as assisting the Patwari in the Patwar Circle, serving summons, notices and all other processes to the people within the Patwar Circle. The petitioner had rendered his services from 1997 till the filing of the writ petition, on a very meager amount, which was paid to him for the service of processes. 3. It has been averred that the similarly situated Revenue Chowkidars, posted in other Patwar Circles, who were engaged even after the engagement of the petitioner, have been granted daily wage status by the respondents, but the petitioner was discriminated even after completion of 16 years of service. 4. The petitioner had approached this Court by filing a writ petition, bearing CWP No.3099 of 2012. The said petition was disposed of on 2nd May, 2012. (Annexure P-1), directing the petitioner to file appropriate representation before the 2nd respondent, who was directed to take appropriate action in terms of policy dated 27.02.2004. 5. In pursuance of the representation made by the petitioner, the claim of the petitioner was considered by respondent No.2, who vide office order dated 23.09.2013 (Annexure P-3) rejected his claim for appointment as Revenue Chowkidar, since the ( 2026:HHC:6553 ) 3 claim raised was not covered under the policy dated 27.02.2004 or any other policy. While rejecting the claim of the petitioner, respondent No.2 had noticed that as per detailed inquiry made by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil), Sarkaghat, District Mandi, H.P., the petitioner was not offered appointment by any competent authority. However, as per report of Patwari, Patwar Circle, Nabahi, the petitioner had served for 7-8 years without any wages. It has also been recorded in the order that the petitioner was not presently working in the office as Chowkidar. 6. Learned Senior Counsel representing the petitioner has vehemently argued that once it is admitted by the respondents that the petitioner had worked as Revenue Chowkidar, the action on the part of the respondents in not converting his services as daily wager, as per policy of the Government and thereafter regularizing his service, is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, for the reason that the services of the similarly situated persons have been converted as daily wagers. He further argued that the respondents are reluctant to engage the petitioner on daily wage basis even after rendering 16 years of services day and night. 7. The respondents filed reply to the petition and averred that the petition is not maintainable. The petitioner was neither appointed as Revenue Chowkidar by the competent authority nor he ( 2026:HHC:6553 ) 4 has any right to file the petition. It has specifically been averred that the petitioner was not appointed as Revenue Chowkidar by the competent authority and the Patwari and Kanungo have no powers to appoint anybody as Revenue Chowkidar. While filing reply to para 11 of the petition, it has been averred that the petitioner was never appointed as Revenue Chowkidar by the respondents. However, he had served as Revenue Chowkidar at his own will for 7- 8 years, in view of the report submitted by the field agencies. 8. Learned Deputy Advocate General submits that since the petitioner was not appointed by the competent authority, he is neither entitled to any wages qua the services rendered by him as Revenue Chowkidar, (though the report is existing on record) nor for any regularization. 9. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Deputy Advocate General representing the respondents and also perused the case file carefully. 10. Learned Senior Counsel is unable to point out any policy whereunder the claim of the petitioner could have been considered for regularization. The petitioner has not mentioned the name of any person, who is similarly situated and to whom the respondents had extended the benefit of policy dated 27.02.2004. Since the petitioner was neither appointed by the competent authority nor is ( 2026:HHC:6553 ) 5 covered by any of the policy whereunder, he can seek the relief, the order passed by respondent No.2 on 23.09.2013, does not call for any interference to that extent. However, the plea raised by the respondents in the reply and as has been canvassed by Mr.Sumit Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General representing the respondents-State that the petitioner had rendered services at his own and once he was not appointed by the competent authority, he is not entitled to any other relief is not accepted and rejected. 11. It is true that the petitioner was not appointed by the competent authority, but at the same time, officials of the respondents have admitted in their reply as well as perusal of certificate Annexure P-6 issued by the Village Revenue Officer, Patwar Circle, Nabahi, which has been counter signed by Kanungo, reveals that the petitioner had performed his duties and thus he is at least entitled to the wages, which were being paid to the daily wager at that time. Though, a vague reference has been made in the report Annexure P-6 dated 15.01.2010 issued by the then Village Revenue Officer that the petitioner had worked for 7-8 years, however, for the purpose of granting him the wages, the total period be taken as seven years. 12. The respondent-State being a model employer cannot take a plea to deny the wages on the ground that the appointment ( 2026:HHC:6553 ) 6 of the petitioner was not by the competent authority. Since it is not the case of the respondents that the petitioner had not worked as Revenue Chowkidar, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner cannot be denied the wages qua the period when he had actually worked with the respondent-Department. The respondent- State had not pleaded in the reply that they had appointed regular Chowkidar to perform the duties of the Chowkidar and in the absence of such plea, it can safely be construed that the petitioner had been discharging the duties of Revenue Chowkidar, which fact is supported by the report dated 15.01.2010 (Annexure P-6) as well as per the version taken note of by respondent No.2, while rejecting the claim of the petitioner for offering him appointment as Revenue Chowkidar, as is evident from perusal of office order dated 23.09.2013 (Annexure P-3). 13. In view of the aforesaid discussion, it is held that the order dated 23.09.2013 (Annexure P-3) does not call for any interference by this Court, save and except the respondents are directed to pay the wages of Revenue Chowkidar, which were prevalent when the services of the petitioner were taken for seven years only. In case the wages are not paid to the petitioner within three months from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment, the ( 2026:HHC:6553 ) 7 respondents shall pay interest @6% per annum on the said wages from due date till its actual payment. 14. The writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms, so also the pending applications, if any. ( Jiya Lal Bhardwaj ) March 09, 2026 Judge (naveen)