Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 856 (HP)

Chaman Lal v. State of H. P.

2025-04-30

JYOTSNA REWAL DUA

body2025
JUDGMENT : (Jyotsna Rewal Dua , J.) The case set-up by the petitioner is that: - 2(i) Petitioner was engaged as daily rated worker on muster roll in the respondent-Forest Department in the year 2009. He served as such till the year 2012. Thereafter, from year 2016, his employment status was altered on ‘bill basis’. Petitioner continues to serve in the respondent-Forest Department on ‘bill basis’. 2(ii) Petitioner has rendered over 240 working days in each calendar year of his service. Petitioner’s grievance is that the respondents have till date not regularized his service. 3. Respondents in their reply have refuted the factual assertions of the petitioner. According to the respondents, petitioner was engaged as Mazdur to carry out seasonal forestry work in the year 2009; Petitioner ever since 2016 has been executing the work as Mazdur in the Department, but on bill basis and for seasonal forestry works; Petitioner never completed 240 days of continuous service in any calendar year; Forest Department does not engage any labour either on muster roll basis or by any other means; The works are to be carried out on bill basis and such payment is made as per the work carried out on scheduled rates. Such payment is not on daily wage basis. Respondents have denied the claim of the petitioner for regularization. According to the respondents, petitioner was not working against any sanctioned post; he was engaged on bill basis, therefore, his services cannot be regularized. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the case file. 4(i). In Pyare Lal Vs. State of HP & Ors. , CWP No. 1529/2020, decided on 08.08.2023 , respondents’ contention for denying regularization to the petitioner therein, on the ground of his engagement being on bill basis was turned down. Engagement on bill basis was held to be not a determinative factor. Respondents were directed to consider the case of the petitioner, therein, for regularization in terms of the State policy after taking into consideration the period for which the petitioner therein had worked with the respondents irrespective of the manner in which he was paid. Relevant paras from the decision are as under: - “6. In the case in hand, the respondents have submitted that the petitioner has not worked for 240 days in any calendar year. Relevant paras from the decision are as under: - “6. In the case in hand, the respondents have submitted that the petitioner has not worked for 240 days in any calendar year. They have not submitted the mandays charge, showing the engagement of the petitioner per year since 2010. The only material placed on record is the details provided in Annexure R-3, which leads to no conclusion, as from this document, it cannot be inferred that for how many days, the petitioner has worked in a particular year. 7. As regards the contention of the respondents that the petitioner has been engaged on bill basis will not be the determining factor. In Vikram Singh vs. State of H.P. & others, CWPOA No. 6748 of 2019, decided on 22.7.2022, this Court had examined the implication of payment of hourly basis to a workman vis-à-vis his entitlement for regularization on the basis of his continuous service as daily wager. It has been held that the relevance would be attached to the total working period irrespective of the manner in which the payment was made by the employer. 8. In light of above discussion, the petition is allowed with direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization in terms of the policy of the State Government by taking into consideration the entire period after January, 2010 for which the petitioner has worked with the respondents irrespective of the manner in which he was paid. The entire exercise in terms of this order including the passing of final order shall be completed by respondent No.3 within a period of two months from the date when a copy of this order is submitted before such authority. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.” It has been submitted that the respondents implemented the above decision and considered the period of service rendered by the petitioner, therein, on bill basis, for the purpose of his claim for regularization of services. The claim was though rejected eventually on the ground that the petitioner, therein, was found to have not completed 240 days during the years in question. 4(ii) In Ram Singh Vs. The claim was though rejected eventually on the ground that the petitioner, therein, was found to have not completed 240 days during the years in question. 4(ii) In Ram Singh Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Others , [CWP No. 789/2024 decided on 04.07.2024] , it was held that distinction being created by the respondents between a daily waged and a bill based worker is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. That there was no intelligible differentia between a daily waged and bill based worker. The right of regularization in terms of the policy of the State Government cannot be denied on the count that nomenclature of the service is not that of a daily wager, but a bill based worker. Paras appropriate to context go as under:- “5. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is serving with the respondents-Department since 2015 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 22.04.2020 on the subject regularization of daily waged workers/contingent paid workers is on record appended with the rejoinder as Annexure P-8. 6. This Court of the considered view that the distinction, which is now being created by the respondents-Department between a daily wage worker and a bill base worker is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Be it a daily wage worker or a bill base worker, he is rendering the same service to the Department. Therefore, in the absence of their being any intelligible differentia between a daily wage worker and bill base worker, the classification that has been made by the Department cannot pass the touch stone of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, in the absence of their being any intelligible differentia between a daily wage worker and bill base worker, the classification that has been made by the Department cannot pass the touch stone of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The right of regularization in terms of the policy of the State Government dated 22.04.2020, cannot be denied to the petitioner simply on the count that now his nomenclature is not that of a daily wager, but a bill worker. In case, the petitioner fulfills the criteria of regularization made in Annexure P-8, then, he also has a right to be conferred regularization and the same cannot be defeated simply on the basis of the nomenclature that now stands assigned to him by the respondent.” Similar is the ratio of the decision in Neter Singh Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors., CWP No.9085/2023 decided on 21.11.2024 In view of above legal position, which has been accepted by the respondent-Forest Department, mere nomenclature of engagement as on bill basis instead of working on daily wage basis, cannot be taken against the claim of the petitioner to be considered for regularization of his services in accordance with the applicable policy. The aforesaid legal position has been accepted by the respondents and implemented as well in Pyare Lal , (supra) case. However, comprehensive data about the number of days served by the petitioner in the respondent-Forest Department is not available on record. Therefore, in light of above discussion, this writ petition is allowed to the extent of directing the respondent-Forest Department to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization as per the applicable State Government Policy by taking into consideration the entire period for which the petitioner had worked with the respondent-Forest Department irrespective of the nomenclature/mode in which he was paid. This exercise be carried out within six weeks. The order so passed be communicated to the petitioner. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.