Himachal Pradesh High Court | Continuous 20-Year Service Secures Regularisation Under 2014 Policy | State Censured with ₹50K Costs for Repeatedly Denying Claim
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Himachal Pradesh Single Bench of Justice Sandeep Sharma quashed the rejection of a Class-IV employee’s claim for regularisation of services and directed the respondents to grant regularisation with effect from 2013. The Court ordered that the employee’s services be regularised in accordance with the policy dated 28.06.2014 within a period of four weeks. Additionally, the Court imposed costs of ₹50,000 on the respondents for repeatedly failing to comply with earlier judicial directions. The directives explicitly required that the costs be paid to the petitioner expeditiously, preferably within four weeks. The Court categorically held that the repeated rejection orders passed by the authorities were unjustified and contrary to binding judicial pronouncements.
The matter pertained to a Class-IV employee engaged in Government Post Graduate College, Nahan, District Sirmaur. The petitioner had been working since 23.06.2006 as a daily wager performing duties as Peon, Daftri, Chowkidar, and Sweeper in the Arts Block of the college without any break. After completion of the requisite number of years, he sought regularisation under the policy framed by the Government of Himachal Pradesh. However, his request was rejected.
The initial appointment of the petitioner was made by the Principal of the college. The respondents argued that since such appointment was without prior approval of higher authorities and against non-sanctioned posts, it could not be regularised. As a result, the petitioner approached the erstwhile Himachal Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal in Original Application No. 5830 of 2017, which was later transferred to the High Court and registered as CWPOA No.3135 of 2020. The Division Bench, vide judgment dated 16.10.2020, directed the respondents to consider the petitioner’s case for regularisation if it fell within the ambit of the policy.
Despite these directions, the respondents rejected the case through an order dated 03.07.2021 on the grounds that no policy existed for regularising non-teaching staff engaged by college heads without approval. Aggrieved by this rejection, the petitioner again approached the High Court by way of CWP No.5003 of 2021. The Single Bench, vide judgment dated 04.04.2024, held that the rejection was unsustainable since the Division Bench had already clarified that the case should be considered under the regularisation policy if criteria were met. The Court again directed reconsideration within eight weeks.
Subsequently, the respondents again passed a similar rejection order dated 18.01.2025. In the meantime, an appeal (LPA No.456 of 2024) against the Single Bench’s order was dismissed by the Division Bench on 11.12.2024, affirming that if the petitioner fulfilled the criteria for regularisation, the respondents were bound to regularise his services. Despite this, the authorities continued to deny regularisation on the same grounds.
The petitioner’s rejoinder pointed out that although the respondents claimed he was paid from amalgamated funds, such funds were deposited in the Treasury and withdrawn from there, thereby acquiring the nature of government funds. The Division Bench in 2020 accepted this contention, holding that salary so paid constituted government money. Yet, the respondents continued to rely on the same rejected argument.
The Court noted that the petitioner had continuously worked for nearly 20 years with 240 days in each calendar year and had never been removed from service despite claims that his appointment was irregular. In these circumstances, the petitioner once again sought quashing of the rejection order dated 18.01.2025 and prayed for regularisation from the due date with consequential benefits.
The Court recorded that it was not in dispute that the petitioner had been engaged as a daily wager in 2006 and had worked continuously in the capacity of Peon, Daftri, Chowkidar, and Sweeper. On the respondents’ argument that his appointment was not in accordance with law, the Court observed: “Interestingly, there is no explanation rendered on record that in case initial appointment of the petitioner was not in accordance with law, why, till date, he is still continuing.”
While considering the earlier judgment of the Division Bench dated 16.10.2020, the Court quoted: “In aftermath, the espousal of the petitioner, is, meritworthy, and, if within the ambit of the apposite policy, the petitioner has completed the requisite period of service, under the respondents, thereupon, the respondents are directed, to, forthwith make an order of regularisation in service, of, the petitioner, against the apposite substantive post, along with all incidental thereto benefits.”
Referring to the rejection order dated 03.07.2021, the Single Bench in 2024 had stated: “The adjudication by Hon’ble Division Bench that the case of the petitioner be considered within the ambit of the Policy of regularisation has to be construed that in case the petitioner was fulfilling the criteria set in for regularisation, i.e. the requisite number of years and requisite number of days in a calendar year along with education qualification etc., if any, then the respondents were bound to have had regularized the services of the petitioner, but they had no occasion to sit over the judgment of the Hon’ble Division Bench and again reject the case of the petitioner on the same plea which stood rejected by Hon’ble Division Bench.”
The Court reiterated that once the Division Bench had clarified the position, the respondents were bound to act in accordance with that direction. It further noted: “In case petitioner had put in requisite number of years and requisite number of days in a calendar year along with educational qualification, there was no occasion, if any, for respondents to reject the case of the petitioner on the ground that his initial appointment made by the respondents is not in accordance with law.”
The Court examined the respondents’ repeated plea that the petitioner was paid from amalgamated funds and dismissed it as irrelevant in light of the earlier Division Bench finding: “The moment, amalgamated funds are deposited with the Treasury and thereafter salary is paid by drawing the amount from the Treasury, it acquires the trait of Government money/public funds.”
The Court observed that despite repeated clarifications by both Single and Division Benches, the respondents were “hell-bent in not granting the benefit of regularisation to the petitioner for totally unjustifiable reasons.” The Court remarked that it appeared that officials had “made it a prestige issue for themselves and that is why they are not leaving any stone unturned in defeating the rightful claim of the petitioner.”
The Court held: “Once petitioner, in the capacity of Peon, had been working in the College concerned for almost 20 years and till date, no steps, if any, were taken by the respondents to remove him for the reason that his initial appointment was dehors the rules, coupled with the fact that petitioner has been working continuously with 240 days in each calendar year, his prayer for regularisation from due date, in terms of policy of regularisation, needs to be allowed.”
The Court allowed the petition and quashed the impugned order dated 18.01.2025. It directed: “Impugned order dated 18.01.2025 (Annexure P-22) is quashed and set aside, with the direction to respondents to regularize the services of the petitioner w.e.f. 2013 i.e. within a period of seven years, from the date of initial appointment of the petitioner, in terms of policy of regularisation dated 28.06.2014 (Annexure P-11), expeditiously, preferably, within a period of four weeks.”
Further, the Court imposed costs of ₹50,000 on the respondents for repeatedly compelling the petitioner to litigate despite clear judicial pronouncements. It stated: “Since petitioner herein was repeatedly compelled by respondents to approach this Court for his rightful claim, coupled with the fact that despite repeated clarifications and directions issued by learned Single Judge as well as Division Bench of this Court, respondents failed to comply with the earlier directions issued in cases, details whereof has been given hereinabove, it is a fit case where cost amounting to 50,000/- should be imposed upon the respondents. Ordered accordingly. Cost quantified by this Court shall be paid to the petitioner expeditiously, preferably, within a period of four weeks.”
The petition was disposed of in these terms along with pending miscellaneous applications.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioner: Mr. Nishant Khidtta, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, with Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for State.
Case Title: Sh. Balbir Singh vs. State of H.P. and Others
Neutral Citation: 2025: HHC:28037
Case Number: CWP No.3189 of 2025
Bench: Justice Sandeep Sharma
