2026:HHC:11812 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CMP(M) No. 164 of 2026 and LPA No. 205 of 2026 Date of decision: 09.04.2026 State of H.P. & Ors. …Appellants Versus Chaman Lal …Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice G. S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin C. Negi, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Appellants: Mr. Pranay Pratap Singh, Additional Advocate General. G. S. Sandhawalia , Chief Justice (Oral) CMP(M) No. 164 of 2026 Keeping in view the averments made in the application, duly supported by an affidavit, delay of 131 days in filing the appeal is condoned. The application stands disposed of. LPA No. 205 of 2026 2. The appeal has been filed alongwith an application under Order 41, Rule 27 read with Section 151 CPC for filing additional documents giving the bill details of the employee and the regularization policy dated 22.04.2020. 3. Consideration is sought of the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP No. 2302 of 2023, titled as Chaman Lal vs State of H.P. & Ors., decided on 30.04.2023. The learned Single Judge directed consideration for regularization as per the applicable State Government Policy by taking into consideration the 2 2026:HHC:11812 entire period for which the petitioner had worked irrespective of the nomenclaure/mode in which he was paid, which has led to the filing of the present appeal. 4. Reliance was placed upon the earlier judgment passed in CWP No. 1529 of 2020, titled as Pyare Lal vs. State of H.P. & Ors., decided on 08.08.2023, whereby it had been held that similar directions have been issued rejecting the contention that an engagement on bill basis would not entitle the writ petitioner to consideration for regularization. 5. Similarly, reliance was also placed upon CWP No. 789 of 2024, titled as Ram Singh vs. State of H.P. & Ors., decided on 04.07.2024. 6. The decision in CWP No. 908 of 2023, titled as Neter Singh vs. State of H.P. & Ors., decided on 21.11.2024 was relied upon. Learned counsel for the State has pointed out that the comprehensive data about the number of days served by the employee in the respondent-Forest Department is not available on record, as noticed by the learned Single Judge also, and therefore, the directions should not have been issued without material being on record. 7. Learned counsel for the State has referred to the application under Order 41, Rule 27 CPC to point out that on earlier period between 2009 to 2016, the employee had worked on bill basis only for intermittent period during certain months and 3 2026:HHC:11812 therefore, having not worked for 240 days, would not entitle him for regularization. 8. We are of the considered opinion that the arguments as such now raised is not liable to be accepted. In the written statement filed, it has been admitted that since 2016, the petitioner has been working continuously and executing the work on bill basis as a contractor and prior to that period he had not completed 240 days in each calendar year. The material placed on record would also go on to show that from the year 2018 continuously, he was being paid a sum of rupees ranging from Rs. 4950/- to Rs. 10,000/- and has continuously apparently worked for almost each month from the year 2018 till the year 2022. 9. As per the prayer in the writ petition, regularization was on the basis of copy of the instructions dated 21.02.2019 (Annexure P-3), which provides that the services of daily waged/contingent paid workers in all the Departments, would be entitled for the benefit of regularization against the vacant post, who have completed 240 days in the five years. In such circumstances, once it is policy of the State Government itself for regularization, necessary directions have been issued. 10. It is pertinent to notice that the judgments relied upon by the learned Single Judge in Ram Singh’s case was upheld by us in LPA No. 60 of 2025, titled as State of H.P. & Ors. vs. Ram Singh, decided on 27.02.2025, taking into account the fact that the State being a welfare State cannot deny the benefit of 4 2026:HHC:11812 regularization from its own policy by taking recourse to a different nomenclature of working on a bill basis. 11. The said order was upheld by the Apex Court in SLP No. 20695 of 2025, titled as State of H. P. & Ors. vs. Ram Singh, decided on 08.08.2025. Thereafter, in LPA No. 550 of 2025, titled as State of H.P. & Ors. vs. Neter Singh, decided on 18.08.2025, the judgment of the learned Single Judge, has also been upheld by us by again placing reliance upon the earlier judgment in Ram Singh’s case. 12. In such circumstances, keeping in view the admission made by the State in the written statement and material now placed on record, it would be expressly clear that only the consideration has been directed by the learned Single Judge, which is well justified and there is no valid reason as such to take a contrary view. 13. Resultantly, we do not find any merit in the present appeal and accordingly the same is dismissed, so also pending applications, if any. (G. S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice (Bipin C. Negi) 9th April, 2026 Judge (sanjeev)