State Cannot Exploit Temporary Appointments To Deny Regularization | Himachal Pradesh High Court Slams HRTC For Evading Responsibilities
Sanchayita Lahkar
The High Court of Himachal Pradesh Division Bench of Justice Vivek Singh Thakur and Justice Ranjan Sharma has held that the Himachal Road Transport Corporation (HRTC) acted unlawfully in denying regularization to the petitioners who had completed eight years of continuous daily wage service. The Court directed HRTC to regularize the petitioners “on completion of eight years of daily wage service from initial date of appointment with all consequential benefits,” and to issue appropriate orders by June 30, 2025. The monetary benefits are to be granted for a period of three years prior to the filing of the petitions, and beyond that on a notional basis.
The petitioners, initially appointed by HRTC in various capacities—such as peons, clerks, chowkidars, sweepers, and upholsters—on different dates ranging from 1994 to 2000, challenged the rejection of their requests for regularization. These appointments, though made without a formal recruitment process, had resulted in each petitioner completing more than eight years of continuous daily wage service. Their services were subsequently terminated but reinstated following Labour Court awards granting continuity in service, albeit without back wages.
When their cases were placed before the Board of Directors of HRTC, no favorable decision ensued. Consequently, some of the petitioners approached the High Court through individual writ petitions between 2010 and 2013. These writs resulted in judgments directing the HRTC to consider regularization positively. Appeals filed by HRTC against those orders were dismissed, and the Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s directions, particularly in the landmark case of Rishi v. Himachal Road Transport Corporation.
Despite these judgments, HRTC rejected the representations of the petitioners on grounds that the judgment in Rishi was specific to that case and lacked general applicability, as the dates of regularization were not mentioned in the orders for current petitioners.
The aggrieved petitioners then filed Original Applications before the erstwhile Himachal Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal. After the tribunal's abolition, these applications were transferred to the High Court as CWPOAs. The petitioners asserted that the judgments in their prior writs and in Rishi had conclusively settled the issue of their eligibility for regularization after eight years of continuous service, regardless of whether they had been appointed without a selection process.
They also relied on the Tribunal's consistent directions in earlier matters, such as in OA No.3857 of 2016 and similar cases, which had been decided in terms of Rishi. The core of the petitioners' contention remained that denial of regularization solely because of an omitted specific date in the Tribunal’s orders was arbitrary and discriminatory.
HRTC opposed the petitions, maintaining that the petitioners' appointments were not in conformity with procedural rules and that regularization could only be granted as per government instructions dated September 9, 2008, which stipulated completion of eight years as of March 31, 2008.
The Court recorded that the only reason HRTC had given to differentiate these cases from Rishi was the absence of a specific date in the regularization orders. The Court stated: “The rejection order is glaring example of complete non-application of mind, much less judicious mind.”
It further recorded: “Direction to regularize the petitioners on completion of eight years from their first date of appointment, with mention of date of completion of eight years or without mention of such date, makes no difference in the direction passed by the Court.”
The Bench held that this objection was “irrational, unreasonable and arbitrary.” It observed that all essential facts, including the dates of initial appointment and subsequent uninterrupted service, were known to HRTC, and therefore, the Corporation’s failure to act was in violation of judicial mandates.
Referring to the Supreme Court’s judgment in Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner, the Court recorded: “The validity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or otherwise.”
On the issue of delay, the Court observed: “Though law of Limitation is not applicable, however principle of delay and laches is attracted for adjudication… But equals are to be treated in similar manner.” The Court invoked Union of India v. Tarsem Singh and other precedents to support the position that even in cases of delay, relief could be granted, particularly when a continuing wrong is involved.
The Bench also observed: “When a particular set of employees is given relief by the Court, other identically situated persons need to be treated alike… not doing so would amount to discrimination and would be violative of Article 14.”
The Court noted that consistent attempts had been made by the petitioners to assert their claims, and therefore, delay could not be a bar. It recorded: “Taking into consideration the circumstances of the petition and incapability and consistent efforts of petitioners to approach the Court, invariably delay and laches may be ignored.”
Further, the Court noted that the State and its instrumentalities were increasingly employing temporary arrangements to evade liabilities. It stated: “Present case is also an example of such practice.”
The Court directed that HRTC “regularize the services of the petitioners on completion of 8 years of daily wage service from initial date of appointment with all consequential benefits” and issue appropriate orders on or before June 30, 2025.
It further stated that “the actual monetary benefits are ordered to be extended to the petitioners for three years prior to filing of the present petitions, and prior to that the monetary benefits shall be on notional basis.”
The Court mandated that “consequential monetary benefits be disbursed to them within eight weeks thereafter.”
With regard to interest, the Court held: “The petitioners shall not be entitled for interest on arrears in case benefits are extended in aforesaid time, failing which the petitioners shall be entitled for interest @6% per annum.”
All petitions were accordingly allowed and disposed of on these terms.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. Manohar Lal Sharma and Mr. Himanshu Kapila, Advocates
For the Respondents: Ms. Shubh Mahajan, Advocate, Mr. B.N. Sharma and Ms. Mamta, Advocates Mr. Raman Jamalta and Ms. Aashima Premy, Advocate, Mr. Vikas Rajput, Advocate
Case Title: Hem Chand & Others v. Himachal Road Transport Corporation
Neutral Citation: 2025: HHC:16059
Case Number: CWPOA Nos.5730, 5794, 1958, 5773, 4360, 6258, 6236, 3373 of 2020; CWP No.953 of 2020
Bench: Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Justice Ranjan Sharma
[Read/Download order]
