Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 803 (HP)

State of H. P v. Gian Chand

2025-04-24

G.S. SANDHAWALIA, RANJAN SHARMA

body2025
JUDGMENT : G.S. Sandhawalia, CJ. CMP(M) No . 283 of 2025 Keeping in view the averments made in the application, duly supported by an affidavit, delay of 120 days’ in filing the appeal is condoned. The application stands disposed of. LPA No. 190 of 2025 2. The challenge in this Letters Patent Appeal is to the order of the learned Single Judge, passed in CWP No.787 of 2024 decided on 18.7.2024, whereby the writ petitioner-respondent thereinhas been granted the benefit of work charge status/regularization in terms of the regularization policy of the State Government dated 30.3.2021, with all consequential benefits. The actual monetary benefits have been restricted to three years prior to the date of filing of writ petition. 3. Defence as such of the State was that the writ petitioner was not appointed on daily wage basis but on bill basis and the learned Single Judge was of the view that it is only a nomenclature, which has been put by the Department and the petitioner had put in service 240 days in each calendar year. The said observations read as under:- “5. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is serving with the respondents-Department since 2016 continuously by putting in more than 240 days in each calendar. It appears that in order to deny such kind of workmen, the benefits of regularization, respondent-State has come with the nomenclature of “bill basis” but, fact of the matter still remains that be it a daily wager or a bill basis worker, he is serving the Department regularly putting in more than 240 days in each calendar. It could be disputed before the Court that at the time when the writ petition was filed in terms of the policy of the State Government in vogue, right of regularization accrued upon a person post completion of 5 years of continuous service. Said policy dated 30.03.2021 on the subject regularization of daily waged workers/contingent paid workers is on record appended with the rejoinder as Annexure P-8.” 4. In similar circumstances, we have dismissed LPA No.177 of 2025 titled as State of H.P & others Vs. Khem Raj, decided on 11.04.2025 while relying upon our earlier decision in LPA No.60 of 2025 titled as State of H.P Vs. In similar circumstances, we have dismissed LPA No.177 of 2025 titled as State of H.P & others Vs. Khem Raj, decided on 11.04.2025 while relying upon our earlier decision in LPA No.60 of 2025 titled as State of H.P Vs. Ram Singh, decided on 27.2.2025 and we were also of the same opinion that was only a nomenclature which is granted by the department and would not absolve it from the applicability of State to deny the said benefit. The relevant portion of the order passed in LPA No.60 of 2025 reads as under:- “3. The argument raised before learned Single Judge, which has now also been repeated, is that the employee, as such, had been appointed on “bill basis” and not on “daily wage basis” and, therefore, the policy dated 22.04.2020 was not applicable in this case. 4. Learned Single Judge found that there was no intelligible differentia between a “daily wage worker” and “bill basis worker”, as such, and the benefit could not be denied in accordance with law on the basis of nomenclature and therefore, directed consideration, as noticed above, if the employee fulfilled the criteria of the regularization made in Annexure P-8. 5. It is not the case of the State that the policy of regularization is not applicable in this case and the only distinction sought to be made out is that the employment is on “bill basis” and therefore, the employee is not a daily wager who would be covered under the policy in question. The nomenclature as such, which has been given apparently by the State is on account of fertile imagination of the Department. Nothing was placed on record before the learned Single Judge to show that the nomenclature as such, which had been given of “bill basis” and that raising of a bill for a specific work as such, which might keep the employer out of the policy. The only document which was appended with the written statement as such, was a letter from the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest to the Department that certain employees as such had worked on “bill basis” and thus were not covered under the policy of regularization in view of the services provided. The only document which was appended with the written statement as such, was a letter from the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest to the Department that certain employees as such had worked on “bill basis” and thus were not covered under the policy of regularization in view of the services provided. The written statement is silent about the nature of work which was done and whether it was for a specific purpose, which would have consumed the whole day or not and for which a bill might have been raised. Thus, the nomenclature which has been given by the Department, would not as such absolve it from the applicability of policy of the State to deny the benefit of regularization. 6. The learned Single Judge had noticed that the employment is from the year 2015 which was the categorical case in the writ petition and that the petitioner had completed 240 days in each calendar w.e.f. 01.01.2015 and appended the necessary man- days chart, regularization policy and a representation given on 01.12.2023. It would go on to show that communication dated 21.02.2021 regarding the appellant along with ten other daily wage workers for regularization was sent to the Chief Conservator of Forest, as per the regularization policy, but no action had been taken. 7. In such circumstances, the writ petition has been filed and there is no denial of the fact that the matter had been forwarded by the Chief Conservator of Forest and it is only a general denial that the claim is not tenable in view of the nomenclature. No material worth any substance was placed before the learned Single Judge, as noticed above, regarding the particular type of work for which the petitioner was appointed by the Department and whether the said work was not similar to that of the daily wager. 8. In such circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the distinction which is sought to be carved out by the State is without any justification or in the absence of any documentation placed on record. Therefore, the learned Single Judge has rightly directed consideration as per the policy of the State itself being recognized by the State to give the benefit of regularization being a welfare State which now cannot wriggle out from its own policy by resorting to this frivolous litigation. 9. Therefore, the learned Single Judge has rightly directed consideration as per the policy of the State itself being recognized by the State to give the benefit of regularization being a welfare State which now cannot wriggle out from its own policy by resorting to this frivolous litigation. 9. Accordingly, we find no merit in the present appeal, the same is dismissed alongwith pending application(s), if any.” 5. Keeping in view the above, we are of the considered opinion that there is no plausible reason, as such, to take a different view from what we have already taken. 6. Resultantly, we do not find any merit in the present appeal and dismiss the same. 7. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.