1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA LPA No.206 of 2026 a/w LPA No.207 of 2026 Decided on : 09.04.2026 Uploaded on : 22.04.2026 1. LPA No.206 of 2026 State of Himachal Pradesh and others …… Appellants Versus Chander Sain …… Respondent 2. LPA No.207 of 2026 State of Himachal Pradesh and others …… Appellants Versus Ritu Devi …… Respondent Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellants : Mr. Varun Chandel, Additional Advocate General in both the appeals. Bipin Chander Negi, Judge Since a common question with respect to regularization of the respondent(s) initially appointed on a contract in the HP Mid- Himalayan Watershed Development Project arises for consideration in the two appeals, hence, they are being taken up together for consideration. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 In LPA 206 of 2026, the impugned judgment is dated 02.09.2025, passed in CWP No.7810 of 2025, titled Chander Sain vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others. 2. In LPA 206 of 2026, it is an admitted fact that in the HP Mid- Himalayan Watershed Development Project, a post of Peon-cum- Watchman had been advertised in the year, 2007. The respondent being eligible, in all respects, had applied and participated in the selection process. 3. On being successful in the aforesaid selection process, the respondent had been appointed vide letter dated 13.09.2007 in the HP Mid-Himalayan Watershed Development Project in the office of the Divisional Watershed Development Officer, Parbati Watershed Development Division, Kullu (Annexure P-1 with the writ petition, page 98 of the appeal paper-book). In terms of the appointment letter specifically clause 10 thereof the respondent was to be governed by the rules of the Himachal Pradesh Natural Resource Management Society (herein after for purpose of brevity referred to as “HPNRMS”). The fact that the HP Mid-Himalayan Watershed Development Project is a part of the Forest Department is evident from the Certificate issued by the Additional Chief Secretary (Forest) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh in this regard, i.e., Annexure P-4 with the writ petition, page 110 of the appeal paper- book. A further perusal of the same reflects that HP Mid-Himalayan Watershed Development Project is being implemented by the “HPNRMS”. 3 4. Besides the aforesaid, cases similar to the present respondent (Chander Sain), wherein regularization had been done are detailed in Paragraph-13 of the writ petition. Reply in this respect is at page 294 of the appeal paper-book. In this regard, it would be relevant to refer to the judgment of a Co-ordinate Division Bench in LPA No.153 of 2023 titled as State of HP versus Sant Ram and another, decided on 07.10.2023, wherein similarly situate daily waged respondents working in the HP Mid-Himalayan Watershed Development Project had drawn the attention of the Co-ordinate Division Bench to similar instances which were accepted by the Co-ordinate Division Bench in Paragraph-7 of the aforesaid judgment and had, therefore, allowed regularization of the respondents therein (Annexure P-12 with the writ petition). The relevant part reads as under:- “7. The petitioners were claiming parity vis-a-vis similarly situated persons, whose details were given in Para-7 of the petition, for the purpose of conferment of work-charge status and regularization. To substantiate their contention, the petitioners appended with the petition as Annexure P-4 (Colly), the orders of regularization of some of the persons similarly situated as the petitioners. There are on record of the writ file order dated 23.07.1999, in terms whereof, one Shri Yog Raj was regularized and appointed as regular Chowkidar w.e.f. 23.06.1999 în the office of Assistant Project Director, Integrated Watershed Development Project, Kandi (Hills) area, Una; order dated 29.07.1999, in terms whereof, one Shri Ram Krishan was regularized as a regular Chowkidar again in the office of Assistant Project Director, Integrated Watershed Development Project, Kandi (Hills) area, Una, H.P.; Copy 4 of proceedings of the Screening Committee, which recommended the regularization of one Shri Shri Ram Lal, son of Birju Lal, who had served in Kandi Project and was thereafter, serving in MHWD Project; and copy of order dated 14.01.1998, in terms whereof, one Shri Devender Singh was regularized against the post of Peon by the order of Assistant Project Director, Integrated Watershed Development Project (Hills), Kandi, area, Nahan, H.P. Incidently, all these orders of regularization were passed by the officers of the respondent/ Forest Department, which is not in dispute. 8. Not only this, in reply to Para-7 of the writ petition, the Department admitted the regularization of the persons named therein, but insisted that daily wage employees have to go alongwith the closing of the project and no vested right is created in their favour.” 5. Civil Appeal No.1858 of 2025 preferred against the aforesaid judgment stands dismissed, as is evident from internal page-8 of the impugned judgment dated 02.09.2025. Besides the afore-mentioned, in Paragraph-22 of the reply filed by the appellants before the writ Court at Page-297 of the appeal paper-book, it has been admitted that the respondent like Sant Ram is a Project staff working under the “HPNRMS”. 6. Before filing CWP No.7810 of 2025 wherein the impugned judgment dated 02-09-2025 had been passed the respondent had filed CWP 9707 of 2024. The latter was disposed of vide order dated 11-09-2024. In pursuance to order dated 11-09-2024 the respondent had made a representation which was rejected on the ground that the judgment in Sant Ram supra was inapplicable as the respondent was a contractual employee and Sant Ram was a daily wager. The rejection of 5 the representation made by the respondent in pursuance to order dated 11-09-2024 passed in CWP 9707 of 2024, vide order dated 22-03-2025 by the appellants was held to be bad in the impugned judgment dated 02-09-2025. Other than the aforesaid the learned single judge in the impugned judgment dated 02-09-2025 has placed reliance on the judgment of one Bhupinder Singh Mehta who was a contractual employee working in a society and had been granted the relief of regularization in the forest department. In the aforesaid factual matrix writ petition filed by the respondent had been allowed. Hence the present appeal. It would be pertinent to mention that the appeal preferred by the appellants in Bhupinder Singh Mehta i.e LPA 841 of 2025 has been dismissed by this bench on 17-03-2026. 7. In LPA No. 207 of 2026, it is an admitted fact that in the HP Mid-Himalayan Watershed Development Project, a post of Social Extension Officer had been advertised in the year, 2008. The respondent, being eligible in all respects, had applied and participated in the selection process. On being successful in the aforesaid selection process, the respondent had been appointed vide letter dated 17.11.2008 (Annexure P-1 with the writ petition, page-87 of the appeal paper-book). Since parties before the writ Court were ad-idem that the case of the respondent was squarely covered by the judgment of one Kamal Dev, CWP 3642 of 2024 decided on 08.04.2025, wherein reliance had been placed on the judgments of Sant Ram and Bhupinder Singh Mehta, hence writ petition filed by the respondent was allowed on similar terms. As has been stated 6 supra before the learned Single Judge, the appellants had agreed that the case of the respondent was squarely covered by the judgment of one Kamal Dev, despite having agreed, the present appeal has been preferred. 8. The sole contention raised on behalf of the appellant is that the respondents are employees of a Society and are, hence, not entitled for regularization in the Forest Department. In the factual and legal matrix narrated herein below, the said contention needs to be rejected. 9. In the reply filed before the writ Court in LPA No. 206 of 2026 (Chander Sain’s case), it has been specifically pleaded that Chander Sain had been employed on a contract in a externally aided Project, i.e., HP Mid-Himalayan Watershed Development Project from 01.10.2007 till 31.03.2017 and thereafter in another externally aided Project, i.e., Integrated Development Project for Source Sustainability and Climate Resilient Rain-fed Agriculture (IDP) till date. It has been further contended in the reply that the aforesaid externally aided Projects were being executed through the “HPNRMS”. 10. The natural resources in general and forests in particular need proper management in order to prevent degradation. Environment and ecology are national assets. They are subject to inter-generational equity (M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, (2009) 6 SCC 142). The Forest Department is the custodian of the forests in the State. Its objective is to conserve and protect the valuable forests of the State. 7 11. The doctrine of public trust enjoins the State/Forest Department to manage, preserve and protect common public resources (forests) in a manner that the public is not deprived of them. The constitution posits this doctrine in Article 48-A which enjoins the State to protect and improve the environment thus: “48-A. Protection and improvement of environment and safeguarding of forests and wildlife—The State shall endeavour to protect and improve the environment and to safeguard the forests and wild life of the country.” (see Rajeev Suri v. DDA, (2022) 11 SCC 1).” 12. Besides the aforesaid, the “Precautionary Principle” has been accepted as a part of Articles 21, 47, 48-A and 51-A(g) of the Constitution of India. The “Precautionary Principle” makes it mandatory for the State Government/Forest Department to anticipate, prevent and attack the causes of environment (forest) degradation. (see M.C. Mehta (Badkhal and Surajkund Lakes Matter) v. Union of India, (1997) 3 SCC 715). 13. Other than the aforesaid development that meets the needs of the present generations without compromising the ability of the future generations to meet their own needs, i.e., ‘sustainable development’, is a fundamental concept of Indian law. (Susetha v. State of T.N., (2006) 6 SCC 543). 14. Keeping in view the aforesaid objectives, principles, besides the usual initiatives, the HP Forest Department had implemented the following externally aided projects;(Appendix A to Annexure R-1 8 appended with the reply filed by the respondents Page 307 of the paper book) (a) Kandi Project I & II (1990-2005) funded by the World bank, (b) Indo-German Changer Project (1992-2006) with the assistance of GTZ through the HP Eco-development Society, (c) HP Mid Himalayan Watershed Development Project (HPMHWDP-2005-2017) with World Bank assistance, and (d) Swan River Project Una (2006-16) implemented with the financial assistance from Japan international Cooperation Agency. 15. 15. The Kandi Project an integrated Watershed Development Project funded by the World Bank was implemented with a view to improve productive potential of the area by evolving watershed technologies and community participation. The same was implemented in two phases - first phase lasted from 1990-1999 and the second phase lasted from 1999 to 2005. ln Kandi Project, the daily wagers were engaged through the HP Shiwalik Watershed Development Society. Thereafter, during integrated Watershed Development Project (Hills) Kandi Area -ll Project (1999-2005), the daily wagers engaged in first phase continued to work in this project. 16. Since first October 2005, HP Forest Department has been implementing the HP Mid-Himalayan Watershed Development in the State with World Bank assistance in ten Districts of the State . As already stated supra according to the Certificate issued by the Additional Chief Secretary (Forest), the HP Mid-Himalayan Watershed Development is a part of the Forest Department. The World Bank funding was to the extent 9 of 80%. The balance was to be paid by the state government. The HP Mid-Himalayan Watershed Development was scheduled to expire in March, 2016. Some of the daily wagers who opted to come on contract in HP Mid-Himalayan Watershed Development were initially engaged in the World Bank funded Integrated Watershed Development Project (Hills) Kandi Area since, 1990, continuously. 17. The HP Mid-Himalayan Watershed Development was being implemented by the “HPNRMS”, a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. “HPNRMS” was incorporated on 27.04.2006. It was to be a permanent entity with a certain minimum office support staff in its Head Office. In terms of H.P. Government Notification No. FFE-A(B)2- 9/2016 dated 19th April, 2017 the “HPNRMS” is the mother society for all the project staff executed under HP Forest Department irrespective of the project they worked in and the funding agency with a rider that the “HPNRMS” will only engage fresh staff with the prior approval of the Administrative and Finance Departments. 18. H.P. Government vide its Notification No. FFE-A(B)2-9/2016 dated 19th April, 2017 issued by Additional Chief Secretary (Forests) {Page 306 of the paper book}, framed a policy to regulate service condition of the Project staff engaged under the HP Mid Himalayan Watershed Development Project (HPMHWDP- 2005-2017), Swan River Project, Una (2006-16) implemented with the financial assistance from Japan international Cooperation Agency, Kandi Project I & II (1990-2005) 10 and Indo-German Changer Project (1992-2006) implemented in the HP Forest Department. 19. There were two main reasons for framing the aforesaid policy to regulate service condition of the project staff (a) welfare of the project staff. The relevant extract of the aforesaid policy in this respect is being reproduced herein after, “most of the daily wagers are now above the age of 45 years and thus have crossed the maximum permissible age limit for recruitment elsewhere. Some of the project staff have put in more than 25 years of services in the projects. These workers have given best years of their life/career to the project.” And (b) advise of the Finance Department, whereby, it was pointed out, “Absorption proposal of these employees of the Forest Department and other line departments, however, has large and recurring financial cost, apart from administrative implication”. 20. As per the Finance Department, once the World Bank funds stop under the HP Mid-Himalayan Watershed Development, then the staff engaged therein would continue to be employees of the “HPNRMS”. The staff would be paid by the “HPNRMS” till their resources permit payment. ln case the “HPNRMS” has no funds to pay, then the employees can be seconded/deputed to Forest Department/other Departments, in their present status i,e. contract basis/ daily wage basis, as the case may be, retaining their lien, in the “HPNRMS”. In due course, when a new externally aided Project is sanctioned in the Forest Department, then 11 employees can be recalled to the “HPNRMS” and can work for the Forest Department again. 21. As per the policy formulated, the “HPNRMS” staff will be paid by the borrowing agency, project, or the department, as the case may be. The “HPNRMS” shall take service charges from the borrowing agency on per person basis. The amount so collected by “HPNRMS” shall be used to pay the staff when they are not in demand in other projects, agencies or departments. Further, in terms of the policy, the Project staff shall have the option of permanent absorption in the borrowing organization without any liability to or lien in the “HPNRMS”. 22. A direction to regularize those employed temporarily who are not needed permanently or regularly is impermissible as financial implications thereof would affect the viability of the department or the instrumentality of the Project. In this respect, reference can be made to the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court, in State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1. Relevant extract whereof reads as under; “19. One aspect arises. Obviously, the State is also controlled by economic considerations and financial implications of any public employment. The viability of the department or the instrumentality of the project is also of equal concern for the State. The State works out the scheme taking into consideration the financial implications and the economic aspects. Can the court impose on the State a financial burden of this nature by insisting on regularisation or permanence in employment, when those employed temporarily are not needed permanently or regularly? As an example, we can envisage a direction to give permanent employment to all those who are being 12 temporarily or casually employed in a public sector undertaking. The burden may become so heavy by such a direction that the undertaking itself may collapse under its own weight. It is not as if this had not happened. So, the court ought not to impose a financial burden on the State by such directions, as such directions may turn counterproductive. (see also Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Workmen, (2007) 1 SCC 408 wherein one of the reasons to deny regularisation was that the appellant therein was a sick company which had been running on huge losses for many years).” 23. The need of the project staff in the case at hand on a regular basis is writ large as work is available in externally aided projects being implemented by the Forest Department. Besides in terms of policy dated 19-04-2017 work is available in the Forest Department itself and in other departments wherein individuals like the present respondents can be deputed. The respondent(s) in the present appeals have been working since 2007-2008. They were initially engaged in the HP Mid-Himalayan Watershed Development Project, which according to the Certificate issued by the Additional Chief Secretary (Forest), is a part of the Forest Department. The respondent in LPA No. 206 of 2026 (Chander Sain) worked from 01.10.2007 till 31.03.2017 in the HP Mid-Himalayan Watershed Development Project and thereafter in another externally aided Project, i.e., Integrated Development Project for Source Sustainability and Climate Resilient Rain-fed Agriculture (IDP) till date. Besides the aforesaid, in the Division Bench judgment in LPA No.153 of 13 2023 Sant Ram (supra), it had been accepted by the Court that similarly situated daily wagers engaged in the HP Mid-Himalayan Watershed Development Project had been regularised. Financial implications, in the case at hand, do not affect the viability of the “HPNRMS”. Rather the “HPNRMS” has been envisaged as a permanent entity managing the project staff irrespective of the project they worked in and the funding agency. 24. In a similar factual matrix, in State of HP and Others versus Bhupinder Singh Mehta & Ors. bearing LPA No 841 of 2025, this Court after taking into account the culture of ad-hocism in perpetuity being promoted by the appellants, the fact that Government departments are expected to lead by example in ensuring fair and stable employment, mechanical and blind reliance placed on Umadevi by the appellants, inequality of bargaining power inter-se the contracting parties on account of their economic strength, legitimate expectation of the respondent employee, the fact that the Society, wherein the respondents are engaged is an extension of the government, considering a fair and humane resolution based on principles of fairness and equity, last but not the least absence of regular posts would be of no consequence in the light of the authoritative pronouncement of the Apex Court in Jaggo Versus Union of India and Others, 2024 INSC 1034 (SLP(C) No.5580 of 2024) and Bhola Nath Versus State of Jharkhand and Others, 2026 INSC 99 (SLP(C) No.30762 of 2024) permitted regularization of contractual employees of the Society. 14 25. In view of above observations, there is no merit in the present appeals and the same are accordingly dismissed, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. ( G.S. Sandhawalia ) ( Bipin Chander Negi ) Chief Justice Judge April 09, 2026 (vs/KS)