Himachal Pradesh High Court
Decided On: 24.04.2025 vs Narayan Singh ... on 24 April, 2025
1
2025:HHC:11448
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.
CMP(M) No. 348 of 2025 in
LPA No. 191 of 2025
Decided on: 24.04.2025
State of H.P & others. ......applicants/appellants
Versus
Narayan Singh ...non-applicant/respondent
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice.
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1
For the applicants/appellants: Mr. Pranay Pratap Singh,
Additional Advocate General.
G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice (Oral)
CMP(M) No.348 of 2025
Keeping in view the averments made in the application,
duly supported by an affidavit, delay of 98 days' in filing the appeal
is condoned. The application stands disposed of.
2. The challenge in this Letters Patent Appeal is to the
order of the learned Single Judge, passed in CWP No.786 of 2024
decided on 31.07.2024, whereby the writ petitioner-respondent
Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
therein has been granted the benefit of work charge
status/regularization in terms of the regularization policy of the
State Government dated 22.04.2020, 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 distinction
which has been put by the Department and the classification was
artificial by giving a nomenclature. The said observations read as
under:-
"5. This Court is 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 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."
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. 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 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. 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.
( G.S. Sandhawalia )
Chief Justice
April 24, 2025 ( Ranjan Sharma )
(mamta/ankit) Judge
