Himachal Pradesh High Court
Nitin Thakur vs State Of Himachal Pradesh And Ors on 23 September, 2025
Author: Sandeep Sharma
Bench: Sandeep Sharma
2025:HHC:33209
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CWP No.4971 of 2024 a/w CWP Nos. 1327, 1672, 1718,
2042, 2571, 3779, 4257, 4263, 4264, 4265, 4312,
.
4485, 4846, 4869, 4904, 4931, 4968 to 4970, 4972,
4973, 5084, 5088, 5271, 5340, 5352, 5409, 5500,
5511, 5526, 5530, 5591, 5650, 5770, 5862, 5961,
5962, 11785, 11839, 11862, 11921, 12094, 12177,
12179, 12200, 12203, 12216, 12234, 12439, 12248,
12263, 12264, 12271, 12296, 12302, 12556, 12562,
13110, 13362, 13379, 14510, 14511, 15300, 15304,
15308 of 2024 and CWP No. 67, 2782 and 4133 of
2025
Reserved on 20.8.2025
Date of Decision: 23.9.2025
_____________________________________________________________________
1. CWP No.4971 of 2024
Nitin Thakur
r .........Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors.
.......Respondents
2. CWP No.1327 of 2024
Ishaant Bhardwaj
.........Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors.
.......Respondents
3. CWP No.1672 of 2024
Neel Kamal Sharma and Ors.
.........Petitioners
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors.
.......Respondents
4. CWP No.1718 of 2024
Vishal Bushahri
.........Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors.
.......Respondents
5. CWP No.2042 of 2024
Suman
.........Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors.
::: Downloaded on - 23/09/2025 21:28:02 :::CIS
-2- 2025:HHC:33209
.......Respondents
6. CWP No.2571 of 2024
Pratibha Verma
.
.........Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors.
.......Respondents
7. CWP No.3779 of 2024
Hitesh Sharma
.........Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors.
.......Respondents
8. CWP No.4257 of 2024
Naveen Nishchal
.........Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors.
.......Respondents
9. CWP No.4263 of 2024
Vinay Thakur
.........Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors.
.......Respondents
10. CWP No.4264 of 2024
Naveen Sharma
.........Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors.
.......Respondents
11. CWP No.4265 of 2024
Gulzari Lal
.........Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors.
.......Respondents
12. CWP No.4312 of 2024
Navdeepak Thakur and Ors.
.........Petitioners
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors.
.......Respondents
13. CWP No.4485 of 2024
Puneet Thakur and Ors.
::: Downloaded on - 23/09/2025 21:28:02 :::CIS
-3- 2025:HHC:33209
.........Petitioners
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors.
.
.......Respondents
14. CWP No.4846 of 2024
Ankush Saklani and Ors.
.........Petitioners
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors.
.......Respondents
15. CWP No.4869 of 2024
Anil Kumar and Anr.
.........Petitioners
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors.
.......Respondents
16. CWP No.4904 of 2024
Rohit Rathore
.........Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors.
.......Respondents
17. CWP No.4931 of 2024
Mohit Sharma
.........Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors.
.......Respondents
18. CWP No.4968 of 2024
Sandeep and Anr.
.........Petitioners
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors.
.......Respondents
19. CWP No.4969 of 2024
Arun Kumar and Ors.
.........Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors.
.......Respondents
20. CWP No.4970 of 2024
Kanav Dogra
.........Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors.
::: Downloaded on - 23/09/2025 21:28:02 :::CIS
-4- 2025:HHC:33209
.......Respondents
21. CWP No.4972 of 2024
Chirag Chadha
.
.........Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors.
.......Respondents
22. CWP No.4973 of 2024
Rajneesh Kumar
.........Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors.
.......Respondents
23. CWP No.5084of 2024
Ankush Gupta
.........Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors.
.......Respondents
24. CWP No.5088 of 2024
Jitender Singh
.........Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors.
.......Respondents
25. CWP No.5271 of 2024
Vijay Kumar
.........Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors.
.......Respondents
26. CWP No.5340of 2024
Rahul Kumar
.........Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors.
.......Respondents
27. CWP No.5352 of 2024
Shubham Sood
.........Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors.
.......Respondents
28. CWP No.5409of 2024
Narinder Singh
::: Downloaded on - 23/09/2025 21:28:02 :::CIS
-5- 2025:HHC:33209
.........Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors.
.
.......Respondents
29. CWP No.5500 of 2024
Jitender Kumar
.........Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors.
.......Respondents
30. CWP No.5511 of 2024
Sahil Cheeda and Ors.
.........Petitioners
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors.
.......Respondents
31. CWP No.5526 of 2024
Rameshwar Singh
.........Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors.
.......Respondents
32. CWP No.5530 of 2024
Reenu Chauhan
.........Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors.
.......Respondents
33. CWP No.5591 of 2024
Nisha Kumari and Anr.
.........Petitioners
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors.
.......Respondents
34. CWP No.5650 of 2024
Pawan Kumar
.........Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors.
.......Respondents
35. CWP No.5770 of 2024
Ved Prakash
.........Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors.
::: Downloaded on - 23/09/2025 21:28:02 :::CIS
-6- 2025:HHC:33209
.......Respondents
36. CWP No.5862 of 2024
Chandesh Rathore
.
.........Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors.
.......Respondents
37. CWP No.5961 of 2024
Dharni Sharma
.........Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors.
.......Respondents
38. CWP No.5962 of 2024
Om Prakash
.........Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors.
.......Respondents
39. CWP No.11785of 2024
Shalini
.........Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors.
.......Respondents
40. CWP No.11839 of 2024
Rohit Kumar and Ors.
.........Petitioners
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors.
.......Respondents
41. CWP No.11862 of 2024
Arun Thakur
.........Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors.
.......Respondents
42. CWP No.11921 of 2024
Varun Sharma and Ors.
.........Petitioners
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors.
.......Respondents
43. CWP No.12094 of 2024
Bhuvan Bhardwaj and Ors.
::: Downloaded on - 23/09/2025 21:28:02 :::CIS
-7- 2025:HHC:33209
.........Petitioners
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors.
.
.......Respondents
44. CWP No.12177 of 2024
Harpreet Singh
.........Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors.
.......Respondents
45. CWP No.12179of 2024
Rakesh Kumar
.........Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors.
.......Respondents
46. CWP No.12200 of 2024
Ajay Singh and Ors.
.........Petitioners
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors.
.......Respondents
47. CWP No.12203 of 2024
Neha Dhinman
.........Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors.
.......Respondents
48. CWP No.12216 of 2024
Vikas Guleria and Ors.
.........Petitioners
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors.
.......Respondents
49. CWP No.12234 of 2024
Ishan Agrawal
.........Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors.
.......Respondents
50. CWP No.12248 of 2024
Vivek Surya
.........Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors.
::: Downloaded on - 23/09/2025 21:28:02 :::CIS
-8- 2025:HHC:33209
.......Respondents
51. CWP No.12263 of 2024
Raman Kumar
.
.........Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors.
.......Respondents
52. CWP No.12264 of 2024
Abhishek
.........Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors.
.......Respondents
53. CWP No.12271 of 2024
Preeti Chauhan
.........Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors.
.......Respondents
54. CWP No.12296 of 2024
Ashwani Kumar
.........Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors.
.......Respondents
55. CWP No.12302 of 2024
Sahil Thakur and Ors.
.........Petitioners
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors.
.......Respondents
56. CWP No.12439 of 2024
Ankush Kaushal and Anr.
.........Petitioners
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors.
.......Respondents
57. CWP No.12556 of 2024
Paritosh Chauhan
.........Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors.
.......Respondents
58. CWP No.12562 of 2024
Rajat Mahajan
::: Downloaded on - 23/09/2025 21:28:02 :::CIS
-9- 2025:HHC:33209
.........Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors.
.
.......Respondents
59. CWP No.13110 of 2024
Chaahat Thakur
.........Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors.
.......Respondents
60. CWP No.13362 of 2024
Shailja Kumari and Anr.
.........Petitioners
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors.
.......Respondents
61. CWP No.13379 of 2024
Vinit Kumar
.........Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors.
.......Respondents
62. CWP No.14510 of 2024
Rajesh
.........Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors.
.......Respondents
63. CWP No.14511 of 2024
Vishal Kumar
.........Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors.
.......Respondents
64. CWP No.15300 of 2024
Dinesh Thakur
.........Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors.
.......Respondents
65. CWP No. 15304 of 2024
Kalpana Thakur and Ors.
.........Petitioners
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors.
::: Downloaded on - 23/09/2025 21:28:02 :::CIS
- 10 - 2025:HHC:33209
.......Respondents
66. CWP No.15308 of 2024
Anshu Bhardwaj and Ors.
.
.........Petitioners
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors.
.......Respondents
67. CWP No.67 of 2025
Kapil Kalsi and Anr.
.........Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors.
.......Respondents
68. CWP No.2782 of 2025
Mukul Verma and Anr.
.........Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors.
.......Respondents
69. CWP No.4133 of 2025
Rishu Puri
.........Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors.
.......Respondents
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting? Yes.
For the Petitioners: Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, Mr. Sunil Mohan Goel
& Mr. Lovneesh Kanwar, Senior Advocates
with Mr. C.N.Singh, Dr. Nidhi Singh, Mr.
Devender K. Sharma, Anshul Gandhi, Mr.
Ramesh Chand, Mr. Rakesh Chauhan, Mr.
Daleep Chand, Mr. Dhiraj Thakur, Ms.
Priyanka Chandel, Mr. Rocky, Mr. Ashwani
Kumar Sharma, Mr. Nitin Rishi, Mr. Rajesh
Kumar, Mr. Tek Chand, Mr. Arun Kaushal,
Mr. Nimish Gupta and Mr. Mohar Singh,
Advocates, for the petitioner(s), in the
respective petitions
For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, Mr.
Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar & Mr. B.C.
Verma, Additional Advocates General, with
Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General,
for the respondents-State.
::: Downloaded on - 23/09/2025 21:28:02 :::CIS
- 11 - 2025:HHC:33209
Mr. Naveen Kumar Pathania, Advocate, for the
respondent-HPHDP, in the respective
petitions.
.
Mr. Balram Sharma, Deputy Solicitor General
of India with Mr. Kunal Thakur, CGC, for the
respondent-Union of India, in all the petitions.
___________________________________________________________________________
Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)
Since common question of facts and law are involved in
the above captioned cases and petitioners therein are aggrieved of
inaction on the part of the respondents to regularize them from the
date they have completed two years service on contract basis, this
court after having clubbed all the cases, heard them together and now
with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, same are being
disposed of vide common judgment.
2. Petitioners herein, who were offered appointment on
contract basis on different posts i.e. Assistant Engineer, Jr. Engineer
(Civil Electrical/ Mechanical Instrumentation, Draftsman, Facilitator,
Surveyors, Technical Facilitator, Procumbent Officer, Programmer MA
Procurement, MA Accounts, Farm Manager, Assistant Farm Manager.
Office Assistant( Management/IT) either by Project Manager, Himachal
Pradesh Horticulture Development Society (HPHDS) or by Director of
Horticulture, on different pay scales etc., have been denied the benefit
of regularization in terms of policy of regularization framed by the
Government of Himachal Pradesh on the pretext that they are not
employees of the respondent-State, but of Societies, as named herein
above.
- 12 - 2025:HHC:33209
3. After being appointed on contract basis by agencies
detailed herein above i.e. Himachal Pradesh Horticulture Development
.
Society and by Director of Horticulture, Himachal Pradesh, petitioners
herein, who have been performing work in the Directorate of
Horticulture, Himachal Pradesh as well as in HPMC, Himachal
Pradesh Agriculture Marketing Board, State Horticulture Universities
and Nursery Management Societies etc., have filed afore petitions
seeking therein direction to the respondents to regularize their
contractual services
r in the Directorate of Horticulture after
completion of two years of contractual service in terms of policy of
regularization framed by the respondent-State (Annexures P-7 and P-
8) with all consequential benefits.
4. Though facts of all these petitions are very much common
but for the sake of clarity and for taking note of documents adduced
on record at the behest of the petitioners, this Court, with the consent
of learned counsel for the parties, shall be referring to the facts of lead
case i.e. CWP No. 4971 of 2024, titled as "Nitin Thakur v. State of
Himachal Pradesh and Ors."
5. For completion of facts, it may be noted that petitioner
Nitin Thakur had approached the Hon'ble Court by way of filing CWP
No. 4971 of 2024 in May, 2024, which was listed on 31.5.2024, on
which this Court passed following order: "In the meantime, the
respondents shall maintain status quo qua the services of the
- 13 - 2025:HHC:33209
petitioner/applicant." Thereafter, the interim order remained in force,
on account of which the petitioner Nitin Thakur, continued in service
.
with the respondent Society. Such order was passed in each of the
petitions, and as on date, all the petitioners are still continuing in
service with the respondent Society. Thereafter, some contempt
petitions were also filed in some of the petitions on account of the fact
that the petitioners were not being paid their remuneration and while
filing reply to the contempt petitions, respondents admitted that the
petitioners are still continuing in job and their services have not been
dispensed with. The contempt petitions were later on disposed of on
account of the fact that the matter was being finally heard and the
respondents were directed to abide by the final outcome of the writ
petitions
6. Respondent-State formed a Society named Himachal
Pradesh Horticulture Development Society ( in short the society) i.e.
respondent No.4, under the Himachal Pradesh Societies Registration
Act, 2006 as is evident from Registration certificate placed on record
(Annexure P-2). With a view to achieve aims and object of Society,
number of posts of different nature including the posts of Junior
Engineer (Civil) came to be advertised on 4.6.2018 by the respondents
(Annexure P-3). Pursuant to afore, petitioner-Nitin Thakur also
applied and he was called for interview. Selection Committee after
having found the petitioner eligible for appointment against the post in
- 14 - 2025:HHC:33209
question, selected him vide order dated 16.11.2019 (Annexure P-4),
pursuant to which he gave his joining on 11.11.2019 (Annexure P-5).
.
7. Pursuant to afore appointment letter, contract agreement
came to be executed inter-se parties i.e. petitioner and respondent-
State, which came to be renewed from time to time. On the strength of
appointment given on contract basis as detailed herein above
petitioner is still working with the respondents (Annexure P-6 and P-
9). It is the case of the petitioners that Government of Himachal
Pradesh framed policy for regularizing the services of the contractual
employees working in the various departments of the State including
the Horticulture department and as such, petitioner Nitin Thakur as
well as other similarly situate persons i.e. petitioners in other writ
petitions, who also came to be appointed on contract basis against
different posts i.e. Assistant Engineer, Jr. Engineer (Civil Electrical/
Mechanical Instrumentation, Draftsman, Facilitator, Surveyors,
Technical Facilitator, Procumbent Officer, Programmer MA
Procurement, MA Accounts, Farm Manager, Assistant Farm Manager.
Office Assistant( Management/IT) pursuant to advertisement issued
by the respondents, ought to have been regularized from the date, they
had completed two years service on contract basis as was done in the
cases of other contractual employees appointed by the State of
Himachal Pradesh in Horticulture Department as well as other
departments of Government of Himachal Pradesh.
- 15 - 2025:HHC:33209
8. Petitioners have further claimed that though some of them
were given appointment by the society and some by the department
.
itself, but since they all have been performing and discharging various
functions/duties of department of Horticulture coupled with the fact
that society is owned and controlled by officials of the respondent-
State, they are also required to be regularized from the date they have
completed two years service from the date of their initial engagment in
terms of policy of regularization framed by Government of Himachal
Pradesh in 2007, 2008 and 2009.
9. To substantiate aforesaid claim, petitioners have
specifically averred in their respective petitions that issue with regard
to reemployment as well as termination of employees of the Indo-
German-Changer Project and IWDP (Hills) Kandi Area, came up for
consideration before the Government and in all the cases, it was
decided that all the employees will be adjusted in the various
departments (Annexure P-10).
10. Besides above, petitioners have further averred that in
similar situation, similarly created Government societies (namely
Himachal Pradesh Natural Resources Management Society (HPNRMS)
under Forest department-Sarv Shiksha Abhiyan Himachal Pradesh
School Education Society under Education department, E-governance
Societies under Department of Revenue, Integrated Watershed
Development Project (IWDP) under Forest Department, H.P. Pollution
- 16 - 2025:HHC:33209
Control Board, Himachal Pradesh Power Corporation, H.P. Zoo
Conservation Society under Forest department, H.P. Red Cross
.
Society, Himurja, Rogi Kalyan Samiti, District Rural Agency (DRDA),
HP MHWD, engaged number of persons , who were initially engaged on
temporary, contract basis but were subsequently adjusted/
transferred to its successor undertaking against vacant posts in the
establishment along with seniority and other benefits and some of the
employees were adjusted in other departments including forest
department of Government of Himachal Pradesh and they were
regularized in terms of regularization policy framed by the Government
of Himachal Pradesh (Annexures P-11 (Colly.) and P-19).
11. It has been also submitted at the behest of the petitioners
that issue with regard to termination of project/society, employees in
the Indo-German-Changer Project came to be adjudicated by the
learned Labour-cum-Industrial Tribunal, Dharamshala and liability to
satisfy the award was fastened on the executive department i.e. Forest
Department, for all intents and purposes (Annexure P-12). Though
aforesaid award was assailed by the department by way of CWPOA No.
2511 of 2099, titled State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. v. Bishan
Dass and Ors., but same was dismissed. Since aforesaid judgment
passed by this Court was further upheld by the Hon'ble Apex Court in
the SLP filed by the respondent-State (Annexures P-13 and P-14),
employees working in the aforesaid Indo-German-Changer Project
- 17 - 2025:HHC:33209
were ultimately regularized. Besides above, number of judgments
delivered by this Court with regard to employees engaged through
.
Societies have been also referred by the petitioners to substantiate
their claims that for all intents and purposes, employees given
appointment on contract basis in the societies are employees of
respondent-State and as such, their services need to be regularized in
terms of policy of regularization circulated from time to time by the
Government of Himachal Pradesh. Though for redressal of their
grievance, petitioners, at the first instance, approached the authorities
through various representations but since needful never came to be
done they approached this court in the instant proceedings, praying
therein for following common reliefs:
(Reliefs of CWP No. 4971 of 2024)
"i) Issue a writ of Mandamus or other appropriate writ order or
direction directing the Respondents to Regularize the
contractual services of the Petitioner on the post of Junior
Engineer (Civil) in the Department of Horticulture (i.e.
Respondent no.1 to 3) after completion of Two years of
contractual service i.e. w.e.f. 18.11.2021 in terms of
Regularization policy with all consequential benefits.
ii) Issue a writ of Mandamus or other appropriate writ order or
direction directing the respondents to pay regular service
benefits & accordingly re-fix the pay of the Petitioner and pay
the entire consequential benefits in favour of the Petitioner with
in time bound manner along with 12% Interest.
iii) Or in Alternative Issue a writ of Mandamus or other
appropriate writ order or direction, by directing the
respondents to pay the equal pay and perks to Petitioner from
- 18 - 2025:HHC:33209
the initial date of her appointment Or after completion of Two
years of contractual service as paid to regular employees of the
.
government department in terms of the law laid down by the
Hon'ble Apex Court of India with all consequential benefits."
12. Pursuant to notices issued in the instant proceedings,
respondents No.1 to 3 and 4 have filed reply, taking therein plea that
petitioners are not the employees of the Horticulture Department,
rather they are employees of the Society, which is an autonomous
body and as such, cannot claim benefit of policy of regularization
framed by Government of Himachal Pradesh. It is further averred in
the replies filed by the afore respondents that petitioners were
temporarily engaged in the society for a specific work and once work of
society is over, petitioners herein cannot claim regularization in term
of policy of regularization, which is not applicable in the case of the
petitioners, rather same is only applicable to the employees, who were
recruited through Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission or
Erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Subordinate Staff Selection Board. It is
also averred in the reply filed by the respondents that services of the
petitioners are co-terminus with the project (paras 3, 5 and 6 of the
preliminary submissions)
13. Respondent No.4 in its reply has taken a stand that it is
an autonomous body (Society), which is running its business and day-
to-day affairs on the basis of grant given by the Central Government
as well as by the State Government to implement the project plan.
- 19 - 2025:HHC:33209
While admitting that petitioners were engaged in the society owned
and controlled by the State of Himachal Pradesh, it is averred at the
.
behest of the respondents that engagement of the petitioners does not
constitute regular service under the State and therefore, they have no
enforceable right to regularization/ absorption in the regular cadre.
14. By way of filing rejoinder to afore replies filed by the
respondents, petitioners have placed on record additional material to
substantiate their claim. They have placed on record copy of project
agreement dated
r 21.6.2016, executed between International
Development Association and State of Himachal Pradesh for a period
of twenty years i.e. w.e.f. 21.6.2016 to 21.6.2036, to state that day-to-
day affairs of the Horticulture Development Project and Society are
being managed by officials of the Horticulture Department, which itself
suggests that entire work being done in the name of the society is the
work of Government of Himachal Pradesh, Horticulture Department
and its sister Units i.e. HPMC, H.P. Agriculture Marketing Board as
well as State Horticulture Universities in the State ( Plantation,
development of nursery, improvement of Horticulture as well as Civil
infrastructure, irrigation facilities). In rejoinder, it has been further
averred at the behest of the petitioners that to deny benefit of its
various policies i.e. regularization, regular service, scales etc. to the
petitioners and alike, respondents have indulged in fraud, unfairness,
exploitation, discrimination and artificial distinction has been created
- 20 - 2025:HHC:33209
by the respondent-State among its employees by creating Societies
and as such, lifting of veil of the Society is necessary in order to see
.
the fraud, improper conduct of the Respondent State and to remove
the imaginary/artificial distinction/barrier created between the State,
Horticulture department and the HPHDP, which is a government
created /formed /controlled/run Society.
15. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone
through the record of the case.
16. From the
r careful perusal of pleadings as well as
submissions made by the respective counsel for the parties , which
shall be taken note of in the later part of the judgment, following
issues arise for determination in the cases at hand:
"a. Whether "The Himachal Pradesh Horticulture Development
Society (i.e. Respondent No.4), is autonomous body or is being
controlled and managed by the Department of Horticulture,
Government of Himachal Pradesh ?
b. Whether Society has been purposely created to perform day
to day management & monitoring of the work of the
Department of Horticulture though its projects etc.?
c. Whether Petitioners /Employees engaged on contract
basis on various posts, as detailed in earlier part of the
judgment, are serving the Department of Horticulture or Sister
concerns- HPMC, HPAMB, Himachal Pradesh Nauni, University
or they are performing the work of the Society.
d. Whether Himachal Pradesh Horticulture Department
has purposely created society with a view to prevent employees
working in the society from demanding regular pay-scales as
- 21 - 2025:HHC:33209
well as regularization. If yes, whether such act of the
department can be said to be creation of corporate veil?
.
e. Whether Employees, who though claim to have been engaged
through society, but are working in various limbs of
Horticulture Department, can seek regularization in terms of
policy of regularization, framed by the Government of Himachal
Pradesh, after their having completed requisite period of service
or not, especially when similarly situate persons in other
departments have been already granted benefit of policy of
regularization framed by Government of Himachal Pradesh from
time to time?"
17. Though in the cases at hand, respective counsel made
their submissions, but this Court with a view to avoid repetition, shall
be taking note of submissions made by Mr. C.N. Singh, Advocate Mr.
Sanjeev Bhushan and Mr. Sunil Mohan Goel, Senior Advocates, who
made similar submissions.
18. Above named counsel vehemently argued that society-
respondent No.4 is a camouflage because same is controlled by
respondents No. 1 & 2. They further submitted that petitioners herein
came to be employed against various posts as detailed herein above,
through society, but have been discharging duties in Horticulture
Department as well as its subsidiaries i.e. HPMC, H.P. Agriculture
Marketing Board, State Horticulture Universities in the State, H.P.
Nursery Management Societies etc. They further submitted that day to
day management of the society is controlled and managed by the
official of the Department of Horticulture and very object and aim of
the society itself suggest that same has been created for execution of
- 22 - 2025:HHC:33209
various projects of the Department of Horticulture, as a result thereof,
petitioners who are said to be appointed through societies are actually
.
performing the work of Horticulture Department. If it is so, they being
employees of the Horticulture Department, for all intents and
purposes, are entitled to be given benefit of regularization in terms of
policy of regularization framed by the Government of Himachal
Pradesh from time to time. Above named counsel further argued that
Headquarter of the Society is the office of Himachal Pradesh
Horticulture Produce Marketing and Processing Corporation Ltd. (A
State Government Undertaking) Nigam Vihar, Shimla-2, which fact is
evident from the Certificate of Registration alongwith the
Memorandum of Association and Rules & Regulations enclosed
therewith (Annexure P-2).
19. They submitted that Society has been formed/created as
an autonomous body of the Government of Himachal Pradesh for
monitoring, coordination and for implementation of schemes funded
by World Bank or any other externally financed/aided Horticulture
Project(s) as may be authorized by the Government of Himachal
Pradesh from time to time, but Society will focus on carrying out
activities as laid down in the Project Report/Project Implementation
Plan of the Horticulture Development Project or any other projects
taken up by the State Government.
- 23 - 2025:HHC:33209
20. While referring to various Clauses of bye-laws of the
societies, learned senior counsel representing the petitioners, argued
.
that management of the society and functionary are Government
Officials i.e. Additional Chief Secretary (Horticulture), HP, Additional
Chief Secretary(Fin.), HP Principal Government service Secretary
(Printing & Stationary) & Managing Director HPMC, Director of
Horticulture, HP & Joint Controller Finance, Govt. of Himachal
Pradesh, which fact itself suggests that though society has been
shown as autonomous body, but ultimate control lies with officers of
the Government.
21. They submitted that as per clause 28, the Officers and
staff of the Society except contractual and outsourced personnel with
specialized skill as provided in the Project Implementation Plan (PIP) of
the Horticulture Development Project, shall be ideally on
deputation/secondment from the State Government. Though Society
may create such post as provided in the Project Implementation Plan
(PIP), but as approved by the State Government and with the
concurrence of the Governing Council of Society and with the prior
approval of the State Government. However, in the case of suitable
officers and staff from the Government being not available, the
Executive Committee may authorize hiring of contractual employees
for the positions in the Society, meant for Government staff.
- 24 - 2025:HHC:33209
22. They argued that whatever staff is hired/recruited by the
Society even on temporary or daily wages basis would be with the
.
approval of State Government. If it is so, staff engaged in the Society
performing the work of Horticulture Department can be said to be
employees of State Government for all intents and purposes and as
such, they are also required to be given benefit of regularization in
terms of policy of regularization framed by the Government of
Himachal Pradesh from time to time. In support of aforesaid
submissions, they also placed reliance upon some judgments, which
shall be taken note of in later part of the judgment.
23. To the contrary, Mr. Anup Rattan, learned Advocate
General, while supporting the impugned action of the respondents in
as much as not granting regularization to the petitioners, vehemently
argued that petitioners were employed as contractual employees on
temporary basis under various schemes/projects for a specific period
that too by the society. He further argued that appointments were
made pursuant to the advertisement clearly stating terms and
conditions of such contractual appointments. He further submitted
that respondents have no right to claim regularization in terms of
policy of regularization framed by the Government of Himachal
Pradesh. He further submitted that core issue in the present matter
concerns about treating the employees engaged on
temporary/contractual/ project basis under schemes funded by the
- 25 - 2025:HHC:33209
State, Central Government or external agencies such as World Bank,
at par with the government employees under the regular cadre of the
.
State of Himachal Pradesh, which is wholly impermissible. He
submitted that engagements of the petitioners through society do not
constitute regular service under the State and therefore, they have no
enforceable right to regularization or absorption into the regular cadre
of the State.
24. He further argued that petitioners herein cannot claim
parity with employees, who were appointed through Himachal Pradesh
Natural Resource Management Society (HPNRMS), Integrated
Watershed Development Project (IWDP), H.P. Zoo Conservation Society
under Forest department -Sarv Shiksha Abhiyan, HP School
Education Society under Education department, E- governance
Societies under Department of Revenue, H.P. Pollution Control Board,
Himachal Pradesh Power Corporation, H.P. Red Cross Society,
Himurja, Rogi Kalyan Samiti, District Rural Agency (DRDA), for the
reason that these societies were created and funded by the State of
Himachal Pradesh. In some of the cases, persons therein were offered
appointment directly by the department, but in the instant case all the
petitioners have been given appointment by the society that too with
clear cut understanding that for all intents and purposes, they shall
be deemed to be employee of society and not of respondent-State. He
further submitted that while offering appointment to them, it was
- 26 - 2025:HHC:33209
made clear to them that they shall not seek any regularization in
terms of policy of regularization on account of being employees of the
.
society.
25. Though judgments pressed into service by the learned
Advocate General shall be taken note in later part of the judgment, but
at this stage, it would be apt to take note of his submission that this
Court in certain cases while directing respondent-State to regularize
the employees of the societies as detailed herein above, failed to take
note of law laid down in State of Himachal Pradesh v. Nodha Ram
(AIR 1997 SC 1445), whereby Hon'ble Apex Court while setting aside
the judgment passed by this Court, categorically held that no vested
right can be created in temporary employment and State cannot be
directed to regularize in absence of any existing vacancies. While
referring to afore judgment, Mr. Rattan, further argued that in the
afore case after completion of the scheme, employees working therein
were disengaged, but High Court gave interim direction for their re-
engagement, which order was subsequently set-aside by the Hon'ble
Apex Court, observing that such directions amount to creating posts
in a non-existent establishment and State cannot be directed to do so.
26. He further submitted that in earlier judgment passed in
the case of societies as detailed herein above, different Benches of this
Court, failed to take note of judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in
Mohd. Abdul Kadir & Anr. v. Director General of Police, Assam &
- 27 - 2025:HHC:33209
Ors. 2009 (6) SCC 611, wherein it came to be ruled that temporary
employees engaged for a particular scheme/project cannot claim
.
regularization. He submitted that it specifically came to be ruled in
the aforesaid judgment that these employees cannot claim
continuance or regularization in another scheme/ project as a matter
of right, rather their services being co-terminus with the project need
to be terminated. Court also observed that extension of length of
scheme does not entitle an adhoc employee to seek permanency or
regularization. r
27. While Referring to judgment passed by the Constitution
Bench in State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (2006) 4 SCC 1, learned
Advocate General, argued that public employment must strictly
comply with the constitutional mandate under Articles 14 and 16. He
submitted that temporary, adhoc, daily wage or contractual employees
do not acquire any legal right to seek regularization merely by virtue of
their engagement or continued service, rather regularization can be
considered only where the employees were duly qualified, appointed
against duly sanctioned posts and their appointments were made
through a regular and transparent recruitment process in accordance
with the applicable rules. In nutshell, Mr. Rattan, while referring to
aforesaid judgments attempted to argue that judgments passed by
Coordinate Bench this Court thereby holding employees of society
entitled for regularization are per-incuriam on account of the fact that
- 28 - 2025:HHC:33209
respective courts while delivering such judgments, failed to take note
of judgments cited by the learned Advocate General, as noticed herein
.
above.
28. To substantiate his argument with regard to rule of per-
incuriam, learned Advocate General, referred to the judgments passed
by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Indore Development Authority v.
Shailendra (2018) 3 SCC 412, in Fuerst Day Lawson Ltd. v. Jindal
Exports Ltd (2001) 6 SCC 356 and in M/s Bajaj Alliance General v.
Rambha Devi (Civil Appeal No. 841 of 2018), applicability, if any,
whereof shall be discussed while ascertaining the correctness of rival
submissions made by the respective counsel representing the parties
to the lis.
29. With the afore pleadings as well as submissions made at
the behest of the learned counsel for the parties to the lis, this Court
shall make an endevour to find out correct answer to the issues
framed in the earlier part of the judgment. Since all the issues are
interconnected, this Court shall deal with the same together.
30. It is not in dispute that respondent-State has formed a
society and got it registered under Himachal Pradesh Societies
Registration Act 2006, by the name of Himachal Pradesh Horticulture
Development Society and its headquarters is the office of Himachal
Pradesh Horticulture Produce Marketing and Processing Corporation
Ltd. ( A State Undertaking), but to ascertain extent of control of State
- 29 - 2025:HHC:33209
over the respondent society, this Court finds it necessary to take note
of certain terms and conditions of Memorandum of Association and
.
rules and regulations, which are otherwise available at page-39 to 51
of the paper book.
31. Clause 4 of Memorandum of Association and rules and
regulations ( Pg-39 to 51) of Respondent no.4, is as under:
"4. Purposes and Objectives:
(i) The Society shall function as an autonomous body of the
Government of Himachal Pradesh for monitoring, coordination
and/or implementation of World Bank or any other externally
financed/aided Horticulture Project(s) as may be authorized by
the Government of Himachal Pradesh from time to time.
(ii) Primarily, the Society will focus on carrying out activities as
laid down in the Project Report/Project Implementation Plan of
the Horticulture Development Project or any other project taken
up by the State Government with World Bank or other external
finance/aid or centrally funded or aided by any other source as
may be authorized by the State Government.
(iii) Specifically, the basic objective of the Society is to take up
activities and make investments through various implementing
agencies/ line departments of the State Government for
achieving the development objectives of the Horticulture
Development Project taken up by the State Government.
32. As per the societies bye-Laws Clause 5, the functions of
the Society are as under:
(i) to take/undertake all actions/activities that may be
necessary for preparation of Project Implementation Plan and its
implementation under Horticulture Development Project or
other Projects relating to horticulture, as may be authorized by
the State Government, hereinafter also called as "Project", in
- 30 - 2025:HHC:33209
particular for achievement of the development objectives of
individual Project;
.
(ii) To manage such institutions and properties so handed over
to the Society for the purpose of implementation of Horticulture
development Project and to create separate agencies or bodies
for this purpose;
(iii) To create duly empowered management mechanism,
through participation of/collaboration with various
stakeholders, as deemed necessary for achievement of
development objectives of the Project;
(iv) To establish an appropriate implementation, coordination
and monitoring mechanism at the district, sub-division, block,
village and Panchayat levels and to delegate appropriate powers
to such bodies as may be necessary for implementation of the
Project;
(v) To undertake innovative initiatives in areas related to the
Project, as stated in the relevant Project Reports/Project
Implementation Plan or as recommended by the Review
Missions of the Project Funding Agencies or as may be directed
by the State Government;
vi) To create technical, administrative and other posts
considered necessary for implementation of the Project in the
Society, and to retain such posts in the Society and to make
payments for the same, pursuant to provisions in this regard in
the Rules & Regulations of the Society. the creation of such
posts, however, shall be as per stipulations of the Project
Report/Project Implementation Plan of the Project, and such
posts duly approved by the State Government;
(vii) To make rules and regulations, not inconsistent with the
Memorandum of Association, in conduct of activities of the
Society;
(viii) To accept grants of money, securities of property and to
undertake and accept management of any endowment
consistent with the object of the Project;
- 31 - 2025:HHC:33209
(ix) To prepare annual reports, monthly, quarterly and annual
accounts of the Society;
.
(x) To purchase, hire, dispose through formal auction, take on
lease, exchange or otherwise acquire property both movable and
immovable, in pursuance of objectives of the Project and
otherwise to achieve the objectives of the Society;
(xi) To commit expenditure as received from the Government or
any other source in pursuance of objectives the Project and that
of Society; and
(xii) To take all such actions, including those not mentioned
above, as may be necessary for or incidental to the
achievements of development objectives of the Project and that
of the Society.
33.
All its management and functionary are Government
Officials i.e. Additional Chief Secretary(Hort.), HP, Additional Chief
Secretary(Fin.), HP Secretary (Printing & Stationary) & MD.HPMC,
Director of Horticulture, HP & Joint Controller Finance, Govt. of H.P. is
in order to achieve the aims and object of the Respondent no.1 & 2
and execute its works , which included works in various nature of
Projects which are externally, internally as well as ,world bank
funded, are executed.
34. In terms of the RULES & REGULATIONS of the Society,
Clause 2 (vi) "Chief Executive Officer" means the Chief Executive
Officer of the Society to be appointed by the State Government and
shall be an officer of Indian Administrative Service cadre. The Chief
Executive Officer shall also be the Project Director of Himachal
Pradesh Horticulture Development Project.
- 32 - 2025:HHC:33209
35. Clause 2 (vii) Executive Committee" means the Body
which is constituted as such under Section-15 of the Act ibid, as the
.
Governing Body of the Society and which is responsible for overall
management of the Society and implementation of the Project or
Projects. Clause 2 (xi) "Implementing Agencies" means the line
departments of the Government of Himachal Pradesh and other
institutions entrusted with the responsibility of implementing the
Project as determined by the Government of HP and as laid down in
the Project Implementation Plan. Clause 2 (x) "State Government"
means the Government of Himachal Pradesh. Clause 2 (xii) "Officers
and Staff" means the officers and staff in the employment of the
Society including the officers, staff, and consultants working in the
Society- part time or full-time. This will also include the Government
officers on deputation and placed on Service Disposal basis, in
addition to their own duties in the parent Government Department.
Clause 2 (xiv) "PIU" means the Project Implementation Unit (PIU),
under the Society, located in the Offices of the implementing
Government Departments/Corporations created for implementation of
the Horticulture Development Project, determined by the Government
of HP. Clause 2 (xvi) "Project Director" means the Project Director of
Horticulture Development Project. Clause 2 (xvii) "Project" means
Horticulture Development Project or any other Project(s) as may be
- 33 - 2025:HHC:33209
entrusted by the Government of Himachal Pradesh from time to time
for coordination, monitoring and/or implementation by the Society.
.
36. Clause 3 (xiii) Implementing Agency means
departments of the Government of HP and autonomous institutions
entrusted with the responsibility of implementing Horticulture
Development Project or any other "Projects" as determined by the State
Government and as laid down in the Project Implementation Plan.
Such departments/ agencies may include Departments of
Horticulture, Agriculture, Animal Husbandry, Fisheries, I&PH, PWD,
Rural Development, Environment & Forest, etc. and Agencies/Bodies
such as Horticulture & Agriculture Universities, HPMC, Marketing
Boards/Committees, Self Help Groups (SHG), Farmers Interest Groups
(FIGs), Agro Service Groups (ASGs), NGOs etc., to foster public private
partnership in order to achieve the objectives and goals of the Project.
clause 3 (xiv) "PD" means the Project Director of H.P. Horticulture
Development Project and Chief Executive Officer of the Society,
appointed as such by the State Government.
37. As per Clause 4 Management and flow of funds to
Society: (i) The State Government shall sanction and release funds in
the shape of Grant-in-aid in one or more than one installment for
implementation of Horticulture Development Project or any other
project to the Society. (ii) The Society shall be responsible for
submission of Utilization Certificate for the funds released to it. (iii)
- 34 - 2025:HHC:33209
Any interest earned by Society on un-utilized funds will be utilized for
the activities of the Society with the permission of the Project funding
.
agency.
38. Clause 5 deals with General Body/Governing
Council(GC) comprises of highest government officials 1. Chief
Secretary to the Govt. of H.P. 2. Additional Chief Secretary/Principal
Secretary(Hort.) to the Government of HP Additional Chief
Secretary/Principal Secretary/ Secretary (Agriculture), HP Additional
Chief Secretary/Principal
r Secretary/Secretary(IPH),HP| Additional
Chief Secretary/Principal Secretary/Secretary(Finance), HP Additional
Chief Secretary/Principal Secretary/Secretary(RDD),HP Additional
Secretary/Secretary (Forests), HP 8. Vice Chancellor, Dr.Y.S. Parmar
University for Horticulture and Forestry, Solan, HP Managing Director,
HPMC 10 CEO-cum-Project Director 11 Advisor Planning H.P. 12.
Director of Agriculture, HP 13. Director of Horticulture, HP 14.
Managing Director, HP Agriculture Marketing Board 15. Chief General
Manager NABARD, Shimla 16 Controller / Jt. Controller (Fin), GOHP.
Four members will be nominated by the President of the Governing
Council, who shall be prominent Horticulture/Agriculture scientists
and Horticulturists. However, they shall not have the right to vote.
39. Clause 8 lays down the Powers and Functions of the
Governing Council: (i) To review the implementation of Horticulture
Development Project and to give overall policy guidance and directions
- 35 - 2025:HHC:33209
for efficient functioning of the Society; (ii) To consider the balance
sheet and audited accounts and their approval; (iii) To consider the
.
annual reports and approval of the same; (iv) To amend the Rules &
Regulations of the Society.
40. From bare perusal of Clauses 9,10,11,12,13,14,15 24, 25
it can be inferred that the Department of Horticulture, Government of
H.P has the overall control over the management and functioning of
the Society.
41. Perusal of Clause 28 reveals that the Officers and staff of
the Society except contractual and outsourced personnel with
specialized skill as provided in the Project Implementation Plan (PIP) of
the Horticulture Development Project shall be ideally on
deputation/secondment from the State Government. Society may
create such post as provided in the Project Implementation Plan (PIP),
as approved by the State Government, and with the concurrence of the
Governing Council of Society and approval of the State Government.
However, in the case of suitable officers and staff from the Government
being not available, the Executive Committee may authorize hiring of
contractual employees for the positions in the Society, meant for
Government staff.
i. Whatever staff is hired/recruited by the Society even on temporary
or daily wages basis would be with the approval of State
Government. The staff hired /recruited by Society would be
Society's own staff and shall belong to the Society only. In case of
the dissolution, the services of employees of Society would stand
- 36 - 2025:HHC:33209
automatically dispensed with. The Rules, Instructions and
guidelines as are framed /issued by the Society or Governing Body
.
from time to time shall Govern them.
ii. The Society shall strictly implement the provisions of Sexual
Harassment of Women at Workplace Act-2013.
42. Various nature of posts of Staff (Page 53 to 55 of the
paperbook) which included posts of Superintendent Engineer ,
Executive Engineer, Assistant Engineer, Jr. Engineer(Civil/Electrical/
Mechanical/ Instrumentation, Draftsman , Facilitator, Surveyors,
Technical Facilitator, Procumbent Officer, Programmer MA
Procurement, MA Accounts, Farm Manager, Assistant Farm Manager,
Office Assistant( Management/IT ) etc. etc. were advertised by the
Director Horticulture /Project Manager, for the implementation of
World Bank funded "Himachal Pradesh Horticulture Development
Project(HPHDP) (Page 496 to 507 of the paperbook) ( Annexure P-3).
43. Proper Recruitment and selection process based upon well
laid down eligibility criteria etc on various nature of posts of Staff
which included posts of Superintendent Engineer , Executive
Engineer, Assistant Engineer, Jr. Engineer(Civil/Electrical/
Mechanical/ Instrumentation, Draftsman , Facilitator, Surveyors,
Technical Facilitator, Procumbent Officer, Programmer MA
Procurement, MA Accounts, Farm Manager, Assistant Farm Manager,
Office Assistant( Management/IT ) etc etc was undertaken by the
Department of Horticulture and based upon merit (Page-63 of the
paper book) appointments were made by the Director of Horticulture.
- 37 - 2025:HHC:33209
44. Such employees appointed on merit on different dates &
post on contract bases (Page 66 to 69 of the paper book), continued
.
to perform their respective duties for the Department, for their works
,being implemented and executed through "The Himachal Pradesh
Horticulture Development Society (i.e. Respondent no.4) through
various projects, works etc, undertaken by the Department of
Horticulture (Page 413-425 of the paper book).
45. Such employees continued beyond their recruitment
period ( 11 months)
r and performed works for the Department of
Horticulture and have completed more then 4 to 7 years of continous
contractual services.
46. In terms of office letter dated 28.12.2021 & 30.04.2023
the respondents-State decided to regularize the service of contractual
employees, who were due to complete two years of continuous service
as on 30.9.2021. (Annexure P-7) ( Pg no.70 to 73 of the paper book)
47. Respondents No.1 to 3 in para 3 (page 231 to 232 of the
paper book) have admitted the fact that Society is an autonomous
body of the Government of H.P. for monitoring ,coordination and
implementation of World Bank or any other externally financed/aided
or centrally funded or aided by any other source as may be authorized
by the State Government.
48. Respondents No.1 to 3 in para 23 (page 245 to 247) while
annexing copy of judgment dated 17.05.2016 passed in LPA no.228 of
- 38 - 2025:HHC:33209
2012 admitted the fact that in HIMURJA, similarly situate of
contractual employees (Motivators) were regularized by the State of
.
H.P.
49. Though from careful perusal of various provisions
contained in the memorandum of association and rules and
regulations, it becomes clear that Himachal Pradesh Horticulture
development society has been created for execution of various projects
of Horticulture development, but respondent-State/department of
horticulture, its higher officials cum governing council have full control
on the day to day activities of respondent No.3.
50. Admittedly, in somewhat similar situation, some of other
societies created by the Government namely Himachal Pradesh
Natural Resources Management Society (HPNRMS) / Forest
Department, Him Urja Project etc. and other projects, initially engaged
employees on temporary, contract basis but were subsequently
adjusted/ regularized /transferred to its successor undertaking
against vacant posts in the establishment along with seniority and
other benefits and some of the employees were adjusted in other
various departments including forest department, and thereafter they
were also regularized in terms of the regularization policy framed by
the Government of Himachal Pradesh. Some of the persons, who are
engaged as Horticulture Development Officer (HDO) on daily wage
basis in the Mid Himalayan Watershed Development Project namely
- 39 - 2025:HHC:33209
Sh. Jagat Singh Negi and Vinay Kumar Class-I (Gazetted) post, were
regularized in the horticulture department. Similarly persons namely
.
Sh. Shyam Lal, Yog Raj, Ram Krishan, Ram Lal, Devender Singh,
Liaquat Ali, all (class IV employees) stand regularized by respondents
either in the government department or in the project itself as is
evident from Annexures P-10 to P-11, available at Pages No.78 to 180
& 456-468.
51. Similar employees of Government created/ registered
Societies, Project, NGOs
r of the State of H.P./Department (namely
Himachal Pradesh Natural Resources Management Society (HPNRMS),
Integrated Watershed Development Project (IWDP), H.P. Zoo
Conservation Society under Forest department -Sarv Shiksha Abhiyan
,HP School Education Society under Education department, E-
governance Societies under Department of Revenue , H.P. Pollution
Control Board, Himachal Pradesh Power Corporation, H.P. Red Cross
Society, Himurja, Rogi Kalyan Samiti, District Rural Agency (DRDA) ,
HP MHWD), stand regularized /absorbed in government department.
52. The similarly situated person had approached the Hon'ble
Court for similar relief CWPOA no.3562 of 2019 ( Sant Ram & Anr vs
State of H.P. & Ors) and same was granted by the Hon'ble Court in
their favour while interpreting the applicability of said regularization
policy and extending the benefits of provisions of the policy framed by
the State Government in favour of the employees of the Society/Project
- 40 - 2025:HHC:33209
also. The aforementioned judgment was assailed by the State by way of
LPA no.153 of 2023 ( State of H.P. & Ors vs Sant Ram & Anr)
.
(Annexure P-15). The LPA was dismissed vide Division bench judgment
dated 07.10.2023 by upholding the judgment dated 6.09.2022 .
Judgment passed in LPA, upholding the judgment passed in CWPOA
No. 35562 of 2019, came to be upheld by the Hon'ble Apex Court on
06.05.2025.
53. Junior Engineers, Assistant Engineers and Draftsmen
etc., employed with Himachal Pradesh School Education Society (
HPSES) on contract basis in projects, such as Sarva Shiksha
Abhiyan(SSA), Rashtriya Madhyamik Shiksha Abhiyan (RMSA),
HPPWD, I & PH etc who had approached this Court for their
retrospective regularization by way of CWP No.3743 of 2021 (Vikas
Gupta & Ors vs State of H.P. & Ors) stand regularized (Annexure P-
16). The Hon'ble Court allowed all such CWP's granting benefit of
Regularization from the due date in terms of Government Policy.
54. It is quite apparent from the pleadings as well as other
material adduced on record that respondents No.1 & 2 are managing
the entire affairs and getting its work done through its self created ,
managed ,monitored ,funded Societies, projects etc by employing and
engaging the services of the Petitioner on contract basis in its
departments units etc, from time to time. Their recruitment,
appointment & T & C are finalized by the Respondent no.1 & 2 /top
- 41 - 2025:HHC:33209
govt. officials, and HR policy etc is formulated by the
Government/Department as such .As such for all intents and purpose
.
the Petitioners /employees are under the control of Respondent no.1 &
2 /State and hence beneficial government policies regarding
regularization policy is applicable to them as well.
55. It was submitted that the Government of Himachal
Pradesh exercises complete control over the Society, as it is owned,
controlled, and funded entirely by the State Government, therefore
while making the submission that it is a fit case where this Court has
to lift the corporate veil to look into the affairs of the Society and the
manner in which the present petitioners who though are being
employed in a Society and that also for a project are actually the
employees of the State Government and working for the advancement
of policies of the State Government for betterment of Horticulturist of
the Himachal Pradesh through the Horticulture Department. In this
regard reliance is placed upon case titled as Kapila Hingorani Vs.
State of Bihar, 2003 (6) SCC 1, relevant paras i.e. 23 to 27 and 71 to
74, read as under:
"25. It is now well-settled that the corporate veil can in certain
situations be pierced or lifted. The principles behind the
doctrine is a changing concept and it is expanding its horizon
as was held in the State of U.P. and Ors. v. Renusagar Power
Company and Ors., [1988] 4 SCC 59. The ratio of the said
decision clearly suggests that whenever a corporate entity is
abused for an unjust and inequitable purpose, the court would
not hesitate to lift the veil and look into the realities so as to
identify the persons who are guilty and liable therefor.
- 42 - 2025:HHC:33209
26.The proposition that a company although may have only one
shareholder will be distinct juristic person as adumbrated in
Salomon v. Salomon and Co., (1897) AC 22, has time and again
.
been visited the application of doctrine of lifting the corporate
veil in revenue and taxation matters. See Dal Chand and Ors. v.
Commissioner of Income Tax, Punjab, [1944] 12 ITR 458 and
Juggilal Kamlapat v. Commissioner of Income Tax, U.P., [1969]
1 SCR 988 = (1969) 73 ITR 702.
27.The corporate veil indisputably can be pierced when the
corporate personality is found to be opposed to justice,
convenience and interest of the revenue or workman or against
public interest. See C.I.T. Madras v The Meenakshi Mills Ltd
and Ors., [1967] 1 SCR 934; Workmen Employed in Assn.
Rubber Industry Ltd., Bhavnagar v. Associated Rubber Industry
Ltd., Bhavnagar and Anr. [1985] 4 SCC 11; New Horizons Ltd.
and Anr. v Union of India and Ors., [1995] 1 SCC 478; State of
U.P. and Ors. v. Renusagar Power Co. and Ors. , [1988] 4 SCC
59; Hussainbhai, Calicut v. The Hath Factory Thezhilali Union,
Kozhikode and Ors., [1978] 4 SCC 257 and Secretary H.S.E.B.
v. Suresh and Ors., [1999] 3 SCC 601."
"71.The States of India are welfare States. They having regard to
the constitutional provisions adumbrated in the Constitution of
India and in particular Part IV thereof laying down the Directive
Principles of the State Policy and Part IVA laying down the
Fundamental Duties are bound to preserve the practice to
maintain the human dignity.
72.We are of the opinion that the State, thus, has made itself
liable to mitigate the sufferings of the employees of the public
sector undertakings or the government companies.
74.We, however, hasten to add that we do not intend to lay
down a law, as at present advised, that the State is directly or
vicariously liable to pay salaries/remunerations of the
employees of the public sector undertakings or the Government
companies in all situations. We, as explained hereinbefore, only
say that the State cannot escape its liability when a human
rights problem of such magnitude involving the starvation
deaths and/or suicide by the employees has taken place by
reason of non-payment of salary to the employees of Public
Sector Undertaking for such a long time. We are not issuing any
direction as against the State of Jharkhand as no step had
admittedly been taken by the Central Government in terms
of Section 65 of the Bihar Reorganisation Act and furthermore
as only four public sector undertakings have been transferred
to the State of Jharkhand in respect whereof the petitioner does
not make any grievance."
- 43 - 2025:HHC:33209
56. It is clear from the aforesaid exposition of law that the
State, as a welfare entity, has a constitutional duty under the Directive
.
Principles to protect human dignity. While the court refrains from
laying down a blanket rule making the State directly liable for salaries
of public sector employees, it emphasizes that the State cannot shirk
its responsibility and in cases where entity is used for unjust,
inequitable, or fraudulent purposes, corporate veil can be lifted/
pierced.
57. In some of the cases the advertisement was issued by the
Project Director, H.P. Horticulture Development Society and in some of
the cases the advertisement was issued by the Director of Horticulture
Himachal Pradesh. Similarly in some of the cases the appointment
order of the petitioners have been issued by the Project Director, H.P.
Horticulture Development Society and in some of the cases by Director
of Horticulture, Himachal Pradesh. In Nitin Thakur case CWP No,.
4971 the appointment letter of the petitioner (Annexure P-4, Page-63)
has been issued by the Director of Horticulture . Moreover the
petitioner has further placed on record, by way of an Application (CMP
22210 of 2024) which is at Page No. 486 of paper book (Annexure A-1),
copy of the Project Agreement entered into between International
Development Association and the State of Himachal Pradesh Page-496
whereby the project was for the period of 20 years, which is to end in
the year 2036. The perusal of the agreement would further show that
- 44 - 2025:HHC:33209
the signatory of the said agreement is the authorized signatory
International Development Association and Principal Secretary
.
(Horticulture) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh (Page-498). The
petitioner has further placed on record (Page 508 to 602 of the paper
book) various proceedings of meeting of Governing Council of H.P.
Horticulture Development Society to demonstrate that all the
Attendees / Members of the said meeting were the highest
functionaries of the State of Himachal Pradesh.
58. It would be apt to take note of certain judgments passed
by the Coordinate Benches of this Court, Division Bench of this Court
as well as Hon'ble Apex Court, wherein in similarly facts and
circumstances, a direction came to be issued to the respondents to
regularize the persons, who were appointed through different
projects/society.
59. Reliance in this regard is placed upon judgment dated
15.6.2023 passed by this Court in CWPOA No. 1660 of 2020, titled
as Anant Ram and Others v. State of Himachal Pradesh and
Others, relevant paras whereof read as under:
"4.Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General
vehemently argued that petitioners in CWP Nos. 1102 and 1119
of 2011 cannot be said to be similar situate to the petitioners
herein for the reason that initially they were given appointment
on contract basis by the government, but he was unable to
dispute this fact that after certain point of time services of the
petitioners in aforesaid cases were taken over by Rogi Kalyan
Samiti and when their services were regularized in terms of the
- 45 - 2025:HHC:33209
policy of regularization framed by Government of Himachal
Pradesh, they were considered to be employee of Rogi Kalyan
.
Samiti not of the government. Learned Additional Advocate
General further argued that there is no policy to regularize
services of the employees, who were given appointment by the
private/independent autonomous society, but he was unable to
explain that under what circumstances petitioners in CWP Nos.
1102 and 1119 of 2011, who at the time of their regularization
were working under Rogi Kalyan Samiti, were regularized. If
reply filed by the respondents to the afore petition is perused in
its entirety, it clearly reveals that petitioners in aforesaid writ
petitions though were initially engaged by the government for a
period of one month and thereafter their services were taken
over by Rogi Kalyan Samiti, meaning thereby services of the
petitioners in aforesaid cases were regularized while they were
employees of Rogi Kalyan Samiti not of the Government.
5. Moreover, this Court cannot lose sight of the fact that affairs
of Rogi Kalyan Samiti are managed by Member Secretarycum-
Chief Medical Officer, Regional Hospital, Bilaspur, meaning
thereby, for all intents and purposes, persons working in Rogi
Kalyan Samiti are the employees of hospital not of the society.
Leaving everything aside, this Court sees no impediment in
accepting the prayer made in the instant petition for the reason
that similar situate persons, as have been taken note
hereinabove, have been already granted benefits, as has been
prayed in the instant petition. Denial of the relief, as prayed for
in the instant petition, would amount to sheer discrimination
among similar situate persons, which is not permissible under
law.
60. In Review Petition 1 of 2024, titled as State of
Himachal Pradesh and Others. V. Anant Ram and Others, this
Court has held as under:
- 46 - 2025:HHC:33209
" Consequently, in view of above, as well as principles laid
down in the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in
.
Kamlesh Vermavs. Mayawati & Ors, (2013)8 SCC 320
and Akhilesh Yadav Etc. vs. Vishwanath Chaturvedi,
(2013) 2 SCC 1, the present petition is dismissed. Pending
applications, if any, are also disposed of."
61. Coordinate Bench of this Court in CWPOA No. 31 of
2019, Jalmu Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Others,
decided on 12.10.2022, has held as under:
"14. In the backdrop of what has been discussed herein above,
this Court is of the considered view that the act of denying
regularization to the petitioner on the basis of instructions,
which have been issued by the State Government pertaining to
the regularization of contract appointees, simply on the ground
that the petitioner does not happens to be an employee of a
Government Department, is arbitrary and discriminatory. The
work which is being done by the Society otherwise is the work
which has to be carried out by the State Government and State
Government in its wisdom rather than executing said work from
the department, decided to constitute a Society to undertake 18
various activities and it was thereafter that the services of the
petitioner and may be other incumbents similarly situated like
the petitioner, were taken on contract basis.
15. The decision to constitute the Society was that of the
Government. The decision to engage employees in the Society on
contract basis was that of the government. Therefore, in these
circumstances, the benefit of the instructions which have been
issued from time to time by the government pertaining to
regularization of contract employees cannot be denied to the
petitioner simply on the ground that he happens to an employee
of the society and not of a government department.
- 47 - 2025:HHC:33209
16. As far as the stand of the respondents, as is also urged by
learned Additional Advocate General, is concerned that the
.
petitioner has accepted the terms and conditions of the
appointment offered to him on contract basis without any
condition, this Court holds that bargaining power of a person
who is being offered appointment on contract basis cannot be
compared to the employer. This Court is of the view that in such
like circumstances, the persons like the petitioner, have no
option but to accept the engagement on whatever terms, the
same is offered to them and they per force sign the terms and
conditions on dotted lines.
20. At this stage, it is relevant to refer to the judgment passed
by Hon'ble Coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No. 1102 of
2011, titled as Sanjay and others Vs. State of H.P. and others,
decided on 28.05.2014 and other connected matter. By way of
this judgment, Hon'ble Coordinate Bench has been pleased to
order the regularization of the services of the petitioners therein,
who were serving in the Rogi Kalyan Samiti, in terms of the
policy of regularization issued by the State Government. The
Court has been informed that this judgment has attained
finality and stands implemented. That being the case, as the
petitioners in the abovementioned writ petition were also being
denied regularization on the ground that they were not the
employees of the State Government but that of a Society, the
judgment passed by the Hon'ble Coordinate Bench squarely
applies to the facts of the present case and therefore also, the
petitioner cannot be denied regularization by the respondents
on the ground that he happens to be an employee of the
Society."
62. Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in CWPOA No. 6687
of 2020, titled as Roop Lal v. State of Himachal Pradesh and
Others, decided on 19.4.2024, has held as under:
- 48 - 2025:HHC:33209
"13. The Council being a NGO created by the Government itself
is fully owned and controlled by the Government of Himachal
.
Pradesh and is a "State" within the meaning of Articles 12 and
226 of the Constitution of India. It, therefore, cannot
discriminate the petitioner(s) under the cloak of so called
"NGO".
14. The main plank of the defence of the respondents is that the
petitioner(s) is a contract employee which is too familiar an
argument, which we come across entailing exploitation of the
employees and which, we feel does not reverberate with the 22
socialistic pattern of society to which a welfare State is
committed to. Hence, such submission lacks of substantive
substance since the respondents cannot escape the mandate of
equality enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution,
particularly, when there is no dispute that the counter-parts of
the petitioner(s) are having regular employment and enjoying all
facilities, be it pay scales, perks or pension etc.
15. There is no gainsaying that getting employment is a
herculean task in view of the prevailing unemployment. Survival
is the basic need as per the 'Maslow's' hierarchy of needs.
Admittedly, element of hope in human nature is gloriously
precious and it kindles the energy to bear difficulties till they
are overcome. The underling hope is that after long years of
service, there could be happy end in parity of pay and ultimately
pensionary benefits.
16. Besides this, there can be no two views about the fact that
the legitimate aspirations of the employees are not extinguished
and a situation is not created where hopes end in despair to
convert it to be deceitful and treacherous.
17. The respondents have snuffed out the hope of regularizing
the services of the petitioner(s) in not granting them equivalent
pay and other allowances with their counter-parts and likewise
denying them pension by forcing the petitioner(s) to work on 23
- 49 - 2025:HHC:33209
contract at the will and pleasure of the respondents for several
years.
.
18. A legitimate aspiration of a secure job of the petitioner(s)
has become the basis to play the game of chess involving the
careers of the petitioner(s) with associated risks of a contractual
job."
63. In LPA No. 66 of 2022, State of Himachal Pradesh and
Others. V. Nishant Sharma and Others decided on 25.4.2024
(alongwith connected matters), Hon'ble Division Bench has held as
under:
"36 It does not behove the State Government or augur well with
this Court that the State as a model employer would play with
rights of the writ petitioners in any manner as has been done in
the instant case.
37 To say the least, the State has acted irrationally,
unreasonably and even arbitrarily as rightly held by the learned
writ court. The benefit of regularization to the petitioners on
completion of 8 years continuous service on contract basis has
been delayed by the writ respondents.
38 Financial implication pleaded by the State cannot be a
ground to deny the writ petitioners their legitimate claim. The
State has failed to justify reasons for denying benefit of
regularization to the writ petitioners on completion of 8 years
continuous service, but has regularized their services pursuant
to the decision taken by the cabinet on 23.11.2020 that too
when many of the writ petitioners had already put in
contractual service for about 2 decades."
64. Reliance is also placed upon judgment dated 16.10.2024,
passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No. 6275 of 2012,
- 50 - 2025:HHC:33209
titled Shri Sanjay Gharu and Others v. State of Himachal Pradesh
and Others., which reads as under:
.
"8. It is not disputed that the SAS has been implemented in the
State since the year 1996 when the Himachal Pradesh School
Education Society Service Regulation, 1996 was promulgated
and thereafter the services of the petitioner were engaged in
different years 5 ranging from 1996 to the year 2000. This
clearly establishes that the project in no manner can be said to
be temporary, since some of the petitioners have worked on
contractual basis for nearly 18 years. Therefore, they are
required to be afforded minimal guarantee of security of tenure.
The respondents cannot deny the petitioners the benefits
arising out of continuous service like pay scale and other
service benefits. The action of the respondents in not
regularizing the service of the petitioners, who have rendered
service ranging from 12 to 18 years is not only arbitrary, but
amounts to exploitation. It is, therefore, violative of Articles 14
and 16 of the Constitution of India. It also amounts to unfair
labour practice. The respondents-State cannot be permitted to
exploit the petitioners and similarly situated persons by keeping
them on contract basis for more than a decade. Indisputably,
the respondents themselves have notified its policies from time
to time providing for regularization of not only its daily waged,
contractual, but even part time employees, such benefit cannot,
therefore, legitimately be denied to the petitioners."
65. Reliance is also placed upon judgment dated 18.3.2025
passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CWPOA No. 2979 of
2020, titled as Bhupinder Singh Mehta and Others v. State of
Himachal Pradesh and Others, wherein it has been held as under:
"4. Petitioners are seeking regularization of their services on
completion of three years of contract service with respondents
- 51 - 2025:HHC:33209
under the regularization policy of the State Government dated
04.05.2017 (A-7).
.
5. The specific case of the petitioners is that after closure of
project their services have been utilized by respondents through
respondent No. 3 on contractual basis. The contract for such
purpose was entered into between the petitioners and the 3rd
respondent.
6. Respondents have contested the claim of the petitioners on
the ground that the petitioners have been re-engaged under
CAMPA on contract basis w.e.f. 05.02.2013 and as per Clause-6
of the contract signed by the petitioners, it was made clear that
their appointment was non-governmental. Further by making
reference to Caluse-9 of the contract, it has been asserted that
the petitioners had entered into a contract by agreeing not to
claim any right for regular employment. The facts with respect
to initial engagement of petitioners as Computer Operators on
contract basis in the society and the closure of the society have
not been denied.
20. The question, thus, arises whether the treatment of
petitioners as a different class than the contractual employees
engaged in different departments and other authorities of the
State is legal and justified? The answer, in my considered view,
has to be in negative.
21. Since, the petitioners for all intents and purposes have been
engaged to discharge governmental functions, their status
cannot be different than other contractual employees of the
State Government. The initial recruitment of petitioners on
contract basis and the longevity of continuous service are the
facts which admittedly have taken place. It is not the case of
respondents that the benefit of the communication dated
04.05.2017 has not been extended to the contractual employees
engaged in other departments of the State Government.
26. In result, the petition is allowed. Respondents are directed
to regularize the services of the petitioners in terms of
- 52 - 2025:HHC:33209
communication dated 04.05.2017 (A-7) on completion of three
years from the date of their respective contractual engagements
.
by respondent No. 3. Petitioners have approached the Court in
the year 2017 itself, therefore, they will also be entitled to all
consequential benefits flowing from the date of regularization of
their respective services."
66. In LPA No. 241 of 2023, titled State of Himachal
Pradesh and Others v. Man Singh and Others, Division Bench of this
Court has held as under:
"3. Pursuant to notice issued in the aforesaid petition, appellant
Department filed reply, stating therein that respondents were
not the employees of the department, rather they were engaged
by a society that too on a project funded by the World Bank.
Apart from above, appellant Department also raised plea that
there is provision in the Project Implementation Plan for
deployment of regular staff from the Forest and Line
Departments and also to engage staff on contract basis by the
project for its implementation. Appellant-Department also
raised plea that since posts of daily wagers are non-existent in
the current project and there is no work charge establishment
in the Forest Department, prayer made by the respondents
herein for conferment of work charge status and thereafter,
regularization after their having completed eight years service,
cannot be accepted.
10. Bare perusal of judgment passed by the learned Single
Judge in Sant Ram (supra), which came to be relied upon by the
learned Single Judge while passing impugned judgment clearly
reveals that all the grounds raised in the instant appeal have
been duly answered in the judgment rendered in Sant Ram
(supra) and subsequently, in the appeal filed by the State in LPA
No. 153 of 2023 titled State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors.v.
- 53 - 2025:HHC:33209
Sant Ram and Another, decided on 7.10.2023. While opposing
the claim in Sant Ram case (supra), appellant department
.
raised similar pleas and grounds as have been raised in the
present appeal, but learned Single Judge in those proceedings
rightly concluded that projects though may be funded by the
World Bank to the extent of 80%, but it cannot be denied that
these projects are government projects and as such, workers
employed in this project on daily wage basis are to be governed
by the policy of regularization and conferment of work charge
status framed by the Government of Himachal Pradesh from
time to time. In Sant Ram (supra), learned Single Judge, having
taken not of the fact that petitioners in those cases were
working for more than 16 years continuously, observed that
petitioners definitely must have lost the chances of employment
elsewhere. Otherwise, the longevity of projects and their
objective has not come to an end. Aforesaid finding rendered by
the learned Single Judge in Sant Ram subsequently came to be
laid challenge by way of LPA filed by the appellant-department,
but Coordinate Bench of this court while rendering judgment
dated 7.10.2023, dismissed the appeal. Having taken note of
the fact that number of similarly situate persons, who were
working in the projects initiated/launched by the Forest
Department, were regularized, coordinate Bench of this court
while dismissing the LPA concurred with the finding returned
by the learned Single Judge that plea of department that daily
wage employees engaged in the Projects have to go alongwith
closing of the project and they have not vested right in their
favour, is not tenable in the eye of law.
11. Bare perusal of pleadings clearly reveals that appellant
department rightly regularized the service of the employees
similarly situate to the respondents and as such, it cannot be
permitted to apply different yardstick for considering the claim
of the respondents for conferment of the work charge status and
regularization. Leaving everything aside, since it is not in
- 54 - 2025:HHC:33209
dispute that judgment passed in Sant Ram (supra), on the basis
of which case of the respondents herein was to be decided, has
.
attained finality, appeal having filed by the department deserves
outright dismissal. Since in terms of the judgment passed in
Sant Ram (supra), persons similarly situate to the respondents
have been extended the relief as has been prayed for by them,
this Court sees no reason to interfere with the impugned
judgment passed by the learned Single Judge, which is
accordingly, upheld. Moreover, plea raised by the department
that Forest Department is not a "work Charge" establishment is
of no consequence in view of specific finding returned by
coordinate Bench of this Court in case titled State of HP and
Ors v. Ashwani Kumar, passed in CWP No. 3111 of 2016,
decided on 10.5.2018, which has been further upheld by the
Hon'ble Apex Court, while dismissing the SLP filed by State
against the judgment of Ashwani Kumar (supra). Mandate given
in judgment rendered in Ashwani Kumar (supra) has been
further reiterated by the Division Bench in LPA No.165 of 2021,
titled State of Himachal Pradesh & Others vs. Surajmani and
Another decided on 12.1.2023, with the rider that actual
benefits shall be restricted for a period of three years prior to
filing of the petition."
67. In CWPOA No. 116 of 2019, titled as Rakesh Thakur
v. State of Himachal Pradesh, this Court has held as under:
"9. Though, at this stage, Mr. Sudhir Bhatnagar, learned
Additional Advocate General, attempted to state that no
sanctioned post ever became available, enabling the
Department to consider the case of the petitioner, but such plea
of him is totally contrary to the record. Respondents in their
reply to the petition have categorically stated that the petitioner
was engaged on contractual basis and an agreement to the said
effect was entered into by the petitioner with the Deputy
Commissioner as Chief Executive Officer District Rural
- 55 - 2025:HHC:33209
Development Agency, Shimla for project period against the
temporary vacancy in the project of Government of India on
.
consolidated monthly remuneration of Rs. 2500/- on lump sum
basis, meaning thereby vacancy was very much available when
services of the petitioner were taken on contract basis. Apart
from above, petitioner has also placed on record vacancy
position procured under Right to Information Act.
Communication dated 22.05.2015 (Annexure A-26), perusal
wherof reveals that in the year 2015, 39 posts of Junior
Engineer were lying vacant in the Department of Rural
Development. Leaving everything aside, it has also come on
record that similar situate persons, who were initially appointed
on contract basis were regularized on their having completed
eight years regular service in different categories, if it is so,
there is no reason for not regularizing the services of the
petitioner from the date, he had completed eight years service
on contract basis. Since appointment letter issued in favour of
the petitioner itself suggests that same was issued by Deputy
Commissioner Shimla, it does not lie in the mouth of the
respondent-State to claim that respondents- State is not the
appointing authority, rather reply filed on behalf of the
respondents, which has been taken note hereinabove, clearly
reveals that for all intent and purposes, petitioner was
appointed against the post of Junior Engineer on contract basis
by Government Agency i.e. Deputy Commissioner, Shimla, may
be under some project. Since all the other persons working on
the project have been regularized in their respective categories
on their having completed eight years daily wage service, case
of the petitioner is also required to be considered on the similar
lines."
68. Reliance is also placed upon judgment dated 20.6.2025,
passed by coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No. 12782 of 2024,
- 56 - 2025:HHC:33209
titled as Pardeep Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Others,
relevant paragraphs whereof read as under:
.
3(iv). Referring to an award passed by learned Labour Court-
cum-Industrial Tribunal in Bishan Dass Vs. The Director Indo
German Changer Project (Annexure P-8), learned counsel for the
petitioner submitted that the Forest Department is liable to bear
the responsibility of the Project/Society qua re-engagement and
regularization etc. The award was affirmed in State of Himachal
Pradesh Vs. Bishan Dass (CWP No.2511 of 2009, decided on
18.06.2010) (Annexure P-9). Special Leave to Appeal (Civil)
No.5588 of 2011 filed against the judgment dated 18.06.2010,
was dismissed by the Hon'ble Apex Court on 08.04.2011
(Annexure P-11). It is not in dispute that the award has been
implemented by the respondents.
3(v). Ground of pendency of Surajmani's4 case before the
Hon'ble Apex Court is no more available to the respondents as
the case now stands decided. The respondents in their reply to
paras 22 and 23 of the writ petition have admitted that the case
of the petitioner is similar to that of Sant Ram v. State of
Himachal Pradesh and Ors. (CWPOA No.3562 of 2019, decided
on 06.09.2022). Even otherwise, similar ratio of law has been
laid down while allowing the case of contractual appointees for
regularization of their services in Bhupinder Singh Mehta and
Ors. v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. (CWPOA No.2979 of
2020, decided on 18.03.2025).
4. In view of above, this writ petition is disposed of by directing
the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for
regularization of his services from due date in accordance with
law laid down in Sant Ram and Bhupinder Singh Mehta within
six weeks. The benefits, if any, flowing to the petitioner be also
released within the aforesaid period.
- 57 - 2025:HHC:33209
69. Reliance is also placed upon judgment dated 5.8.2025,
passed by coordinate Bench of this Court in CWPOA No. 771 of 2020,
.
titled as Mansi Parihar v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Others,
relevant paragraphs read as under:
13. Though, the respondents have tried to project that the
petitioner was appointed against a specific project for limited
period, but it has nowhere been suggested or shown that the
continuance with the services of the petitioner for long period of
16 years is without any need or requirement. It is also not the
case of the respondents that the Society has been created for
limited period. Rather, the objectives of the Society make it
abundantly clear that the Society has been created as an
extended wing of the Government with a purpose to work in
specialized field. It is also evidently clear from the material
placed on record that the services of the petitioner have been
utilized not only for the objectives of the Society, but she has
been deputed from time to time as representative of respondent
No.2- Department in various conferences and seminars. The
petitioner has been deputed to assist the State Bio Diversity
Board in addition to her already assigned responsibilities. The
petitioner has also been deputed to handle the work of
Himachal Pradesh Environment Fund. Even the responsibility
for all kinds of publication related to environment by
HIMCOSTE has been delegated to the petitioner.
18. The conduct of respondents, on the other hand, definitely
cannot be said to be confirming to the constitutional mandate of
Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The purpose of
formulation of institutions like Society herein is to decentralize
the Governmental functions and Constitutional obligations.
Such institutions, thus, cannot be used to serve only certain
vested interests. These in fact are extended wings of the
Government. Running of such institutions on the shoulders of
- 58 - 2025:HHC:33209
workers having no certainty of job cannot be said to serve
public interest in any manner.
.
19. It is not in dispute that the State Government since long has
been formulating Policies for regularization of its contract
employees on completion of specific period of service. The
Executive Committee of the Society in its first meeting held on
09.10.2017 has specifically adopted the Rules and Regulations
of Government of Himachal Pradesh for the staff of the Society,
more particularly, as applicable in the Department of
Environment, Science & Technology. Since, the benefit of
regularization policy by the State Government has been made
available to all the Departments of the State Government,
including respondent No.2-Department, the denial of
applicability of such policy to the employees of the Society is not
justified. The relevant extract of the first meeting of Executive
Committee of the Society is reproduced as under:
"2. Adoption of Rules & Regulations of GoHP to staff in
SEPSD. The EC approved and allowed adoption of the
Rules and Regulations issued by the GoHP from time to
time in the SEPSD as applicable in the Department of
Environment, Science & Technology under various
instructions issued from the Finance Department (FD) and
Personal Department from time to time."
70. Reliance is also placed upon judgment dated 28.5.2025,
passed in CWP No. 3697 of 2024, titled as Mayank Verma v. State
of Himachal Pradesh and Others, relevant paras whereof read as
under:
"2. Before passing further orders, it is apt to take note of Para
No.21 of the reply filed by the respondents, whereby
respondents have categorically admitted in their reply that case
of the petitioner is similar to Sant Ram (supra), but at the time
of filing of the reply, judgment in Sant Ram (supra) was under
- 59 - 2025:HHC:33209
challenge before the Hon'ble Supreme Court by way of SLP. It is
not in dispute that SLP filed by the respondents/State against
.
judgment dated 07.10.2023, passed in LPA No.153 of 2023,
titled State of H.P. and Others Vs. Sant Ram and Another,
laying therein challenge to judgment dated 06.09.2022 passed
by learned Single Judge in CWPOA No.3562 of 2019, stands
dismissed vide judgment dated 06.02.2025, if it is so, case of
the petitioner, being similarly situate to that of Sant Ram's case
(supra), is also required to be allowed in terms of judgment
rendered by Coordinate Bench of this Court in afore case,
especially when respondents have themselves admitted that
petitioner's case is similarly situate to Sant Ram (supra), and as
such, respondents can be directed to decide the case of the
petitioner in light of the aforesaid judgment rendered by this
Court.
3. Consequently, In view of the above, the directions contained
in the aforesaid judgment rendered by this Court in Sant Ram
(supra) are made mutatis mutandis applicable in the present
case for all intents and purposes and respondents are directed
to regularize the services of the petitioner on the post of Data
Entry Operator after completion of six years of contractual
service w.e.f. 06.01.2016, with all consequential benefits.
However, actual monetary benefits shall be restricted to three
years prior to the date of filing of the writ petition.
71. In LPA No. 153 of 2023, arising out of CWPOA 3562 of
2019 titled as State of Himachal Pradesh and Others. V. Sant Ram
and Anr., Hon'ble Division Bench has held as under:
"7. The petitioners were claiming parity vis-a-vis similarly
situated persons, whose details were given in Para-7 of the
petition, for the purpose of conferment of work-charge status
and regularization. To substantiate their contention, the
- 60 - 2025:HHC:33209
petitioners appended with the petition as Annexure P-4 (Colly),
the orders of regularization of some of the persons similarly
.
situated as the petitioners. There are on record of the writ file
order dated 23.07.1999, in terms whereof, one Shri Yog Raj was
regularized and appointed as regular Chowkidar w.e.f.
23.06.1999 in the office of Assistant Project Director, Integrated
Watershed Development Project, Kandi (Hills) area, Una; order
dated 29.07.1999, in terms whereof, one Shri Ram Krishan was
regularized as a regular Chowkidar again in the office of
Assistant Project Director, Integrated Watershed Development
Project, Kandi (Hills) area, Una, H.P.; Copy of proceedings of the
Screening Committee, which recommended the regularization of
one Shri Shri Ram Lal, son of Birju Lal, who had served in
Kandi Project and was thereafter, serving in MHWD Project; and
copy of order dated 14.01.1998, in terms whereof, one Shri
Devender Singh was regularized against the post of Peon by the
order of Assistant Project Director, Integrated Watershed
Development Project (Hills), Kandi, area, Nahan, H.P. Incidently,
all these orders of regularization were passed by the officers of
the respondent/ Forest Department, which is not in dispute.
9. In light of the material which was on record before the
learned Single Judge, it was rightly held by the learned Single
Judge that as the appellants had regularized the services of the
employees similarly situated as the petitioners as well as those
working in special projects, therefore, different yardsticks could
not be adopted for the petitioners. As the findings returned by
the learned Single Judge are duly borne out from the writ
record and as during the hearing of the appeal, it could not be
demonstrated that the findings in the judgment under challenge
were perverse and contrary to the record, we see no reason to
interfere therewith, as we are also satisfied that the petitioners
indeed were discriminated in the matter of conferment of work
charge status as well as regularization vis-a-vis similarly
situated persons by the appellants."
- 61 - 2025:HHC:33209
72. In CWPOA No. 3562 of 2019, titled as Sh. Sant Ram and
.
Anr. v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Others., decided on
6.9.2022, coordinate Bench of this Court has held as under:
10. The questions, thus, arises as to whether the petitioners
have acquired any right to claim the work charge status or/and
regularization?
11. As per the respondents, above noted projects were funded
by World Bank to the extent of 80% and the share of the State
Government in funding the project is to the extent of 20%. Be
that as it may, the fact that these projects are government
projects cannot be disputed.
12. Petitioners have been working in the projects for more than
16 years continuously. They definitely must have lost the
chances of employment elsewhere. The longevity of
projects and their objective has not come to an end. It is not
the case of the respondents that the objective for which these
projects were started has been achieved.
17. Indisputably, the State Government has resorted to
the mode of recruitment through contract employment
since long. It also cannot be denied that the State Government
from time to time has formulated policies whereunder the
employees initially employed on daily wage basis were conferred
work charge status in the first instance and then regularized.
18. Initial recruitment of the petitioners was though
under specific project, nevertheless, the project was for a
specific purpose and object and was an initiative of the
government itself. Merely, the funding of project to the larger
extent was by the World Bank, it cannot be said that the project
was alien to the State Government as it was under the aegis of
State Government that the projects have worked.
19. Once the respondents had regularized the services of
various other employees initially employed under the projects,
- 62 - 2025:HHC:33209
the petitioners could not be singled out to be discriminated.
The State Government had regularized the services of the
.
employees working in special projects like Sarv Siksha Abhiyan,
subsequently converted into District Primary Education
Programme and Rashtriya Madhayamik Siksha Abhiyan and
Samagar Siksha Abhiyan etc.
20. The State Government has to act as a model employer in
a welfare State. It cannot have different yardstick for
different persons. Conceptually, the executive 21 authorities
have the onerous duty to work for the benefit of the public at
large. As far as the mode and manner in which the Government
has to achieve its purpose is to be chosen by the Government
itself, however, with caveat that the same cannot be
irrational, unreasonable or arbitrary. In a State where rule
of law prevails, the Government is no exception. Right
of equality being one of the fundamental traits of the
Constitution, the same cannot be denied at the whims and
fencies of the authorities.
21. Thus in view of the above discussion, there is no hesitation
to hold that the petitioners have acquired a right for grant of
work charge status or/and regularization by application of
principle of legitimate expectations and such rights are to
be conferred upon them on the same parameter on which
other employees of the State government have been
conferred with such benefits.
22. In result, the petition is allowed and the
respondents are directed to grant the work charge status to the
petitioners on completion of eight years of continuous 22 daily
wage service commencing from 01.01.1997 and further to
regularize their services with all consequential benefits at par
with similarly situated persons in other departments of the
State government. However, it is clarified that the
petitioners are held entitled for monetary benefits only for three
years from the date immediately preceding the date of filing of
- 63 - 2025:HHC:33209
the petition. Petition is accordingly disposed of, so also, the
pending applications, if any."
.
73. In CWP No. 3743 of 2021, titled as Vikas Gupta and
Others v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Others., decided on
11.9.2022 (alongwith connected matters), which has been further
upheld upto the Hon'ble Apex Court, coordinate Bench of this Court
has held as under:
"25. Indisputably, the State Government has resorted to the
mode of recruitment through contract employment since long.
The contract employees have been regularized after putting in
certain years of continuous service, as noticed above. The initial
recruitment of the petitioners was though under a specific
project, nevertheless, the project was for a laudable object to
spread education in masses as an initiative of the Government
itself. Merely the funding of project to larger extent was by the
Central Government, it cannot be said the project was alien to
the State Government as it was under the aegis of the State
Government that the projects have worked. Importantly, the
project that commenced about 25 years back is still in
operation. The HPSES has been created to run the project in
question as well as other related projects. It is not the case of
respondents that the project or consequent creation of HPSES
was for a limited period or purpose. Even the State Government
never had any illusion about the continuance of projects being
managed by HPSES. It will be gainful to extract a passage from
the Minutes of Meeting To Review the Progress of Absorption of
Engineering Staff Engaged Under SSA under the Chairmanship
of the Chief Secretary held on 27.8.2020."Chairman asked
Secretary (Education) to explore the possibility of Engineering
wing and regularizing the services of all employees of the Society
in the Society itself as Samagra Shiksha has to be implemented
and for implementation of new education policy, services of
- 64 - 2025:HHC:33209
these employees would be required. There will not be any
burden on the Society as these employees are being paid the
.
regular salary at par with their counterparts in the
departments. If these employees are placed in some other
department, they would move to the department and other
employees will have to be inducted which will be a continuing
cycle. He has pointed out that at present salary is being claimed
41 under the project from the Government of India and
Government of H.P. in the ratio of 90:10, whereas these
employees are inducted in some other department, complete
burden will fall on the State Government. He further suggested
that if services of these employees are regularised in the Society
then Samagra Shiksha Programme will run smoothly and will
also help in implementing New Education Policy in the State for
which these employees have attained expertise". It becomes
evident from above noticed facts that the project in which the
petitioners were employed were not temporary in nature by any
stretch of imagination. The continuity of the project for more
than 25 years as also the purpose sought to be achieved
through such project clearly implies that the same is
necessitated by inescapable obligations vis-à-vis spread of
education in the mass.
26. The State Government has to act as a model employer in a
welfare State. It cannot have different yardstick for different
persons. Conceptually, the executive authorities have the
onerous duty to work for the benefit of the public at large. As far
as the mode and manner in which the Government has to
achieve its purpose is to be chosen by the Government itself,
however, with caveat that the same cannot be irrational,
unreasonable or arbitrary. In a State where rule of law prevails,
the Government is no exception. Right of equality being one of
the fundamental traits of the Constitution, the same cannot be
denied at the whims and fencies of the authorities.
- 65 - 2025:HHC:33209
29. It can also be noticed from the admitted facts of the case
that the petitioners had fallen in circumstances which had
.
inculcated a legitimate expectation in them that their services
would be regularized at par with the other Government
employees and such expectation in the given facts cannot be
termed as unreasonable or excessive. In my considered view the
evident conduct of the respondents amount of denial of a
legitimate expectation of petitioners and thus, leads to the
violation of Article 14 of the Constitution.
30. Accordingly, in view of the observations and analysis made
hereinabove, all the writ petitions are allowed and the
respondents are directed to regularize the services of the
petitioners from the date when they have completed eight years
of service with all consequential benefits within a period of
three months from today. However, in the peculiar facts and
circumstances of the case, the financial benefits, if any, shall be
permissible to the petitioners only for a period of three years
immediately preceding the filing of these petitions. The
regularization orders of the petitioners dated 16.12.2020 are
held illegal and arbitrary and hence quashed to the extent these
contains the condition to the effect that the regular employment
of petitioners will be co-terminus with the existence of HPSES.
The State Government shall remain under direction to provide
continuous regular employment to petitioners till their
respective dates of superannuation in accordance with law,
unless petitioners render themselves incapable for such benefit
under relevant conduct rules.
74. Reliance is placed on judgment dated 8.10.2024, passed
in CWP No. 5068 of 2013, titled as Anita Parihar and Others v.
State of Himachal Pradesh and Others., which has been affirmed
upto the Hon'ble Apex Court, coordinate Bench of this Court has held
as under:
- 66 - 2025:HHC:33209
"3. Vide office order dated 19.3.2005 the services of the
petitioners were placed at the disposal of the Milch Live Stock
.
Improvement Society (for short "MLIS") by the Deputy
Commission- cum-C.E.O., DRDA. Apart from the petitioners
certain other employees were also sent to work with the society.
8. Another fact which cannot be lost sight is that as per the
case set up by the respondents themselves, the services of the
petitioners were handed over to the Society in 2005 by
executing a Memorandum of Understanding on 11.1.2005. In
case the services of the petitioners had already been handed
over to the Society on 11.1.2005 in terms of Memorandum of
Understanding, then where was the requirement of having
subsequently issued office order dated 19.3.2005, whereby the
services of the petitioners along with certain other persons were
again placed at the disposal of MLIS, respondent No. 3 herein.
This action falsifies the defence put forth by the respondents. It
is not the case of the respondents that in case the petitioners
are their employees, then they are not entitled to the
regularization of their services in terms of the instructions
issued by the Government on 9.9.2008, but the only case is that
the petitioners are the employees of respondent No. 3, Society
and not of the DRDA. The petitioners have produced sufficient
material on record to establish that persons who were similarly
situated like that of the petitioners have in fact been
regularized, which averments have not been specifically denied
by the respondents and thus are deemed to be admitted.
9. The petitioners have rendered more than 12 to 20 years of
services and the action of the respondents in not regularizing
their services is arbitrary. It is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of
the Constitution of India. It also amounts of unfair labour
practice. The respondents-State cannot be permitted to exploit
the petitioners and similarly situate persons by keeping them
on contract basis for more than a decade.
- 67 - 2025:HHC:33209
12. Accordingly, in view of the observations and analysis made
herein above, the writ petition is allowed and the respondents
.
are directed to regularize the services of the petitioners from the
date when they have completed eight years of service with all
consequential benefits within a period of three months from
today. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. No
orders as to costs."
75. Learned Advocate General submitted that the services of
the petitioners were temporary and co-terminus with the project,
especially in view of the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this
court in Rita Devi v. State of Himachal Pradesh (CWP No. 658 of
2009) 2005 STPL 8785 HP and by Hon'ble Apex Court in State of
Himachal Pradesh (through the Secretary Agriculture to the
Government of Himachal Pradesh v. Nodha Ram and Others 1998
SCC (L&S) 478.
76. Admittedly, in the afore case, Hon'ble Apex Court has held
that no vested right can be created in temporary employment and
State cannot be directed to regularise their services in the absence of
any existing vacancies but in the case before Hon'ble Apex Court,
petitioners were engaged on daily wages on muster roll basis under a
particular scheme, however in the cases at hand, respondent-State
formed a society and got it registered under Himachal Pradesh
Horticulture Development Society and its headquarters is the office of
Himachal Pradesh Horticulture Produce Marketing and Processing
Corporation Ltd. (A State Undertaking). Copy of certificate of
registration alongwith Memorandum of Association and Rules and
- 68 - 2025:HHC:33209
Regulations as taken note herein above, clearly reveals that
management of society is controlled by the senior officers of the
.
government i.e. Additional Chief Secretary (Horticulture) H.P. is the
Chairperson of the Society and Additional Chief Secretary (Finance)
H.P. and Principal Secretary (Printing & Stationery) H.P. and M.D.
HPMC are the Member Secretaries. In all, 16 members are all
functionaries of the Government of Himachal Pradesh. Power and
Functions of the Governing Council clearly reveal that Government of
Himachal Pradesh may appoint any one or more persons to review the
work and progress of the Society and to hold inquiries into the affairs
thereof and to report thereon in such manner as the State Government
may stipulate. Most importantly, as per Memorandum of Association,
Government of Himachal Pradesh, at any time, may issue directives on
the matter of policy to the Society and society shall be bound to
comply with such directives. As per Rule 28 (i), whatever staff is hired
/ recruited by the Society even as temporary or daily wages basis
would be with the approval of State Government. Most importantly, as
per Rules and Regulations of the society, staff hired /recruited would
be Society's staff and shall belong to the Society only but in case of
dissolution, the services of the employees of the Society would stand
automatically dispensed with.
77. Though an attempt has been made to create an
impression that petitioner herein as well as other similarly situate
- 69 - 2025:HHC:33209
pensions have been recruited by the society and State Government has
nothing to do in the matter, but having taken note of composition, its
.
rules and regulations, this Court has no hesitation to conclude that
work of Horticulture Department as well as its subsidiaries are being
executed through societies with a view to deny the tag of being
government employee as well as permanency, respondents very
smartly formed society for the execution of work of Government and
thereafter appointed number of technical /nontechnical persons, who
have been working for so many years, but now, they have been denied
regularisation on the ground that they were not employees of the
government. Since petitioners, who though have been employed in
the society, but have been actually performing duties in the project of
the Government, this Court is not persuaded to accept the contention
of State that they are not government employees. Once petitioners
herein are working for the advancement of policy of the State
Government and for betterment of the Horticulture in the State of
Himachal Pradesh through Horticulture department, this Court is
persuaded to concluded that society formed in the name of Himachal
Pradesh Horticulture Development Society is camouflage and in
actual, petitioners have been engaged for the execution of the work of
horticulture department, but with a view to deny regularisation, they
have been shown to be employees of the society. In Kapila Hingorani
case (supra), doctrine of piercing/lifting the corporate veil has been
- 70 - 2025:HHC:33209
explained. Corporate veil in certain situations can be pierced or
lifted, whenever a corporate entity is abused for an unjust and
.
inequitable purpose, the Court would not hesitate to lift the veil and
look into the realities so as to identify the persons who are guilty and
liable.
78. It also came to be argued at the behest of the learned
Advocate General that courts while passing various judgments as
detailed herein above, failed to take note of judgment passed by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in Nodha Ram (supra), wherein it while setting
aside the order passed by the Division Bench ordered that no vested
right can be created in temporary employment and that State cannot
be directed to regularize in the absence of any existing vacancies.
79. While referring to judgment passed by the Division Bench
of this Court in LPA No. 153 of 2023, titled as State of Himachal
Pradesh and Others .v. Sant Ram and Anr., wherein Division Bench
of this Court while allowing the appeal Consequently, in view of the
above, curred with the learned Single Judge in CWPOA No. 3562 of
2019, Sant Ram and Anr. v. State of Himachal Pradesh and
Others, which has been further upheld by Hon'ble Apex Court on
06.02.2025, Mr. Rattan argued that afore judgment is in clear
departure of earlier authority by this Court in Rita Devi and Jaidev
v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors (2017 STPL 2554 HP). He
further submitted that High Court of Himachal Pradesh relying on
- 71 - 2025:HHC:33209
Delhi Development Horticulture Employee's Union v. Delhi
Administration (AIR 1992 SC 789), Surendra Kumar Sharma v.
.
Vikas Adhikari (2003) 5 SCC 12 and MD UP Land Development
Corporation v. Amar Singh (2003) 5 SCC 388, held that it is the
settled position of law that when a workman is engaged against a
particular project/scheme and his services come to an end upon the
completion of that project/scheme, such disengagement is lawful and
does not warrant further interference. He further argued that in Rita
Devi (supra), this Court held that employment under a project or
society ends with project's closure and thereafter, no claim for
regularisation or compassionate appointment can survive. In the afore
case, petitioner's late husband was engaged as a daily wager in Indo
German Changer Project, which was funded externally and
implemented through a registered society and all the posts were
abolished once the project closed. He further placed reliance upon
jurisdiction passed this Court in State of Himachal Pradesh v.
Ashwani Kumar and Anr. (1996) 1 SCC 773 and Mohd. Abdul Kadir
and Anr. v. Director-General of Police, Assam and Ors (2009) 6
SCC 611, to state that no vested right is created in favour of the
workman in temporary employment. While referring to judgment
passed in Jaidev (supra), learned Advocate General argued that
learned Single Judge observed that this is not a case where petitioner
was engaged by the State, rather he was engaged by society and as
- 72 - 2025:HHC:33209
such, has no vested right to seek regularisation in terms of policy of
Government framed by the State of Himachal Pradesh. While referring
.
to afore judgments, Mr. Rattan argued that since in all the judgments
pressed into service by the petitioner, as has been taken note herein
above, coordinate Benches failed to take note of judgments as have
been taken note herein above., rule of per-incuriam would come into
play.
80. Before ascertaining correctness of the aforesaid
submissions made by learned Advocate General, it would be apt to
elaborate upon rule of Per-incuriam as established by the Hon'ble
Apex Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, referring to various
precedents, upheld the rule of per incuriam in Indore Development
Authority v. Shailendra (2018) SCC 3 412 as follows:
"206. The concept of "per incuriam" signifies those
decisions rendered in ignorance or forgetfulness of some
inconsistent statutory provisions, or of some authority
binding on the court concerned. In other words, the
concept means that a given decision is in disregard of the
previous decisions of the court itself, or that it was
rendered in ignorance of the terms of an applicable statute
or of a rule having the force of law."
81. In Fuerst Day Lawson Ltd. v. Jindal Exports Ltd. (2001
6 SCC 356), the Court discussed when a judgment can be held per
incuriam:
"A prior decision of the Supreme Court on identical facts and
lave binds the Court on the same points of law in a later case.
- 73 - 2025:HHC:33209
In exceptional instances, where by obvious inadvertence or
oversight a judgment fails to notice a plain statutory provision
.
or obligatory authority running counter to the reasoning and
result reached, the principle of per incuriam may apply. Unless
it is a glaring case of obtrusive omission, it is not desirable to
depend on the principle of judgment 'per incuriam'. It has to be
shown that some part of the decision was based on a reasoning
which was demonstrably wrong, for applying the principle of per
incuriam."
82. The Constitutional Bench in M/s Bajaj Alliance General
v. Rambina Devi (Civil Appeal no. 841 of 2018) laid down the
following principles (not exhaustive):
(i) A decision is per incuriam only when the overlooked statutory
provision or legal precedent is central to the legal issue in
question and might have led to a different outcome if those
overlooked provisions were considered. It must be an
inconsistent provision and a glaring case of obtrusive omission.
(ii) The doctrine of per incuriam applies strictly to the ratio
decidendi and does not apply to obiter dicta
(iii) If a court doubts the correctness of a precedent, the
appropriate step is to either follow the decision or refer it to a
larger Bench for reconsideration.
(iv) It has to be shown that some part of the decision was based
on a reasoning which was demonstrably wrong, for applying the
principle of per incuriam. In exceptional instances, where by
obvious inadvertence or oversight, a judgment fails to notice a
plain statutory provision or obligatory authority running
counter to the reasoning and result reached, the principle of per
incuriam may apply."
83. Facts, if any, of Nodha Ram case (supra) reveals that
respondents therein were engaged on daily wage on muster-roll basis
in Central Scheme and were paid out of the funds provided by the
- 74 - 2025:HHC:33209
Central Government. Scheme was closed and services of Nodha Ram
were dispensed with. This Court passed interim direction to reengage
.
them. Respondent-State filed Special leave Petition, wherein Hon'ble
Apex Court having taken note of the fact that project is complete and
there is non-availability of funds observed that employees have to go
along with its closure and High court was not right to give direction to
regularize them in other place, however, facts of the present cases are
totally different. Petitioners herein cannot be equated with employees
who were employed in project for specific project.
r Petitioners here
have been shown to be employees of society owned controlled and
financed by the state government but as has been observed herein
above, society has been purposely created with a view to avoid a
situation of regular person like petitioners. World bank entered into
agreement for twenty years, which was to end in the year 2036 and not
in year 2024. State just to avoid the benefit which otherwise has to
flow in favour of the petitioners in terms of notification issued by State
Government with respect to regularisation of employees from time to
time and further with a view to avoid regularisation of the petitioner in
view of the law laid down by this Court in catena of judgments as
taken note herein above, has attempted to create facade of the society ,
which is nothing but limb of State of Himachal Pradesh. If the
composition is seen, it is controlled and managed by the senior officers
of the Government. Facts of the present case are totally different from
- 75 - 2025:HHC:33209
the facts of Nodha Ram's case (supra), as such judgment passed by
the Hon'ble Apex Court in Nodha Ram, cannot be said to be a binding
.
precedent in the present facts and circumstances of the case since it
has been proved on record by the petitioner that society is owned and
controlled by the State of Himachal Pradesh registered under the
Himachal Pradesh Societies Registration Act, 2006. Moreover in other
societies of Government, pursuant to judgment passed by this Court,
Government of its own has regularized the services of employees
recruited through society after completion of requisite period as per
notification issued by the State Government for regularisation from
time to time.
84. Basically the meaning of "Incuria" literally means
"carelessness" in practice "per-incuriam" appears to mean "per
ignoratium". In this regard it is submitted on behalf of the petitioner
that it is settled law of the land that little bit difference in the case
makes lot of difference in a precedential value of decision. The law as
cited by the petitioners before this Hon'ble Court is basically with
regard to the law on the aspect of persons working in a society against
a project for a long period. The facts in the Nodha Ram case were
slightly different because it nowhere appears in the judgment passed
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Nodha Ram case that the petitioners
who were employed or whose services were engaged on daily wages
basis for a central scheme were either employee of a society or not. In
- 76 - 2025:HHC:33209
the law as cited by the petitioners as well as the facts of the present
case the petitioners before this Hon'ble Court have been either
.
employed through proper selection done by issuance of advertisement
either by the Project director, HP Horticulture Development Society or
by Director of Horticulture and the appointment letters have been also
issued in favour of the petitioners either by the Project Director, H.P.
Horticulture Development Society or by the Director of Horticulture.
Further as per the Rules & Regulation the petitioners have been
appointed after being approved by the State Government. Therefore
the argument being raised that once the project comes to an end the
services of the petitioners also to come to end are not attracted in the
present case.
85. Hon'ble Apex Court in Union of India & Ors. Vs. Major
Bahadur Singh (2006) 1 SCC 368, held that circumstantial flexibility,
one additional or different fact may make a word of difference between
conclusion of two cases. Hon'ble Apex Court in the afore judgment
held that Court should not place reliance of decision without
discussion as to how the factual situation fits in with the fact situation
of the decision on which reliance is placed. Observations of the Court
are neither to be read as Euclid's theorems nor as provisions of statute
and cannot be read out of their context, rather observation must be
read in the context in which they appeared to have been made. Close
scrutiny of the facts of the case in Nodha Ram's case as well as other
- 77 - 2025:HHC:33209
cases relied upon by the learned Advocate General, would demonstrate
that they were daily wages persons appointed for a particular work
.
against a scheme, whereas in the present case the petitioners are
employees of the society wholly owned and controlled by the State and
even as per Rule 28, their services have to go alongwith the society.
Hence, by no stretch of imagination, judgment cited by the petitioners
can be said to be per-incuriam, as has been attempted to be argued by
the learned Advocate General.
86. Even otherwise, argument advanced by learned Advocate
General that judgment cited by the petitioners are per-incuriam in
view of judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Nodha Ram's
case is liable to be rejected for the reason that law cited by learned
Advocate General with regard to per-incuriam, especially Sundeep
Kumar Bafna v. State of Maharasthra & Anr (2014) 16 SCC 623, if
perused in its entirety, would demonstrate that a decision or a
judgment can be said to be per-incuriam, if it is not possible to
reconcile its ratio with the previously pronounced judgments of a co-
equal or larger bench or if the decision of High Court is not in
consonance with the view of the Hon'ble Apex Court. To come to this
conclusion what is important is to look into the facts of the case,
which in the present case as well as law cited by the petitioners before
this Court are totally different from the facts as were there in Nodha
Ram's case. Leaving everything aside, precedents promote consistency
- 78 - 2025:HHC:33209
and stability in law, however they can become outdated as society
evolves. The courts are to lift the corporate veil, especially in view of
.
the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP(C) No. 5580 of
2024, titled as Jagoo v. Union of India and Ors. and CA No. 8558 of
2018, titled as Dharam Singh and Ors. v. State of UP and Ors.,
whereby Hon'ble Apex Court has come heavily upon the nature of
employment being done by the respectable states on outsource basis.
Practice of offering employment on outsource basis has been
deprecated in the afore cases.
87. Recently this Court in a bunch of petitions in Shubash
Kumar and ors. vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and anr, CWP
No.10354 of 2023 alongwith connected matters decided on
01.09.2025 held Computer Operators engaged in Development Block,
who were claimed to be engaged through MGNREGA by respondent
state, entitled to be regularized taking note of the fact that they have
been working for so many years. Relevant paras are reproduced as
under: ( paras 31 to 36)
31. In Bhupendra Nath Hazarika and another vs. State of
Assam and others (2013) 2 SCC 516, Hon'ble Apex Court, while
laying emphasis on the role of the State as a model employer
observed that a sense of calm sensibility and concerned
sincerity should be reflected in every step and atmosphere of
trust has to prevail and when the employees are absolutely sure
that their trust shall not be betrayed and they shall be treated
with dignified fairness then only the concept of good governance
can be concretized.
- 79 - 2025:HHC:33209
32. Leaving everything aside, once it is not in dispute that w.e.f.
2017, petitioners have been in receipt of regular pay scales as
.
have been received by regularly appointed Computer Operators,
coupled with the fact that there is nothing in the reply
suggestive of the fact that scheme under which petitioners were
appointed has closed, prayer made on behalf of the petitioners
for regularization deserves to be allowed.
33. It is none of the case of the respondents that at the time of
their appointment, may be on contract basis, petitioners were
not in possession of the requite qualifications for the post of
Computer Operators, which has been otherwise provided under
Common Recruitment & Promotion Rules, 2012. If it is so, this
Court sees no justification to accept the stand of the
respondents that initial appointment of the petitioners against
the post of Computer Operators was not made through
Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission or by the
Himachal Pradesh Rajya Chayan Aayog.
34. Though, even at that stage, option was very much available
to the respondents to fill up such posts, perhaps on contract
basis, through the Himachal Pradesh Public Service
Commission or by the Himachal Pradesh Rajya Chayan Aayog,
but once respondents themselves decided to engage petitioners
and other similar situated persons of their own by creating 93
posts, they cannot be permitted at this stage to contend that
petitioners were not appointed against the sanctioned posts.
35. At this stage, it would be also apt to take note of recent
judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.8558
of 2018, titled Dharam Singh and others vs. State of U.P and
another, wherein it has been held as under:-
"17. Before concluding, we think it necessary to recall that
the State (here referring to both the Union and the State
governments) is not a mere market participant but a
constitutional employer. It cannot balance budgets on the
backs of those who perform the most basic and recurring
- 80 - 2025:HHC:33209
public functions. Where work recurs day after day and
year after year, the establishment must reflect that reality
.
in its sanctioned strength and engagement practices. The
longterm extraction of regular labour under temporary
labels corrodes confidence in public administration and
offends the promise of equal protection. Financial
stringency certainly has a place in public policy, but it is
not a talisman that overrides fairness, reason and the duty
to organise work on lawful lines.
18. Moreover, it must necessarily be noted that "ad-
hocism" thrives where administration is opaque. The State
Departments must keep and produce accurate
establishment registers, muster rolls and outsourcing
arrangements, and they must explain, with evidence, why
they prefer precarious engagement over sanctioned posts
where the work is perennial. If "constraint" is invoked, the
record should show what alternatives were considered,
why similarly placed workers were treated differently, and
how the chosen course aligns with Articles 14, 16 and 21
of the Constitution of India. Sensitivity to the human
consequences of prolonged insecurity is not sentimentality.
It is a constitutional discipline that should inform every
decision affecting those who keep public offices running.
19. Having regard to the long, undisputed service of the
appellants, the admitted perennial nature of their duties,
and the material indicating vacancies and comparator
regularizations, we issue the following directions:
i. Regularization and creation of Supernumerary
posts: All appellants shall stand regularized with
effect from 24.04.2002, the date on which the High
Court directed a fresh recommendation by the
Commission and a fresh decision by the State on
sanctioning posts for the appellants. For this
purpose, the State and the successor establishment
- 81 - 2025:HHC:33209
(U.P. Education Services Selection Commission) shall
create supernumerary posts in the corresponding
.
cadres, Class-III (Driver or equivalent) and Class-IV
(Peon/Attendant/Guard or equivalent) without any
caveats or preconditions. On regularization, each
appellant shall be placed at not less than the
minimum of the regular pay-scale for the post, with
protection of last-drawn wages if higher and the
appellants shall be entitled to the subsequent
increments in the pay scale as per the pay grade. For
seniority and promotion, service shall count from the
date of regularization as given above.
ii. Financial consequences and arrears: Each
appellant shall be paid as arrears the full difference
between (a) the pay and admissible allowances at the
minimum of the regular pay-level for the post from
time to time, and (b) the amounts actually paid, for
the period from 24.04.2002 until the date of
regularization /retirement/death, as the case may be.
Amounts already paid under previous interim
directions shall be so adjusted. The net arrears shall
be released within three months and if in default, the
unpaid amount shall carry compound interest at 6%
per annum from the date of default until payment.
iii. Retired appellants: Any appellant who has
already retired shall be granted regularization with
effect from 24.04.2002 until the date of
superannuation for pay fixation, arrears under clause
(ii), and recalculation of pension, gratuity and other
terminal dues. The revised pension and terminal
dues shall be paid within three months of this
Judgement.
iv. Deceased appellants: In the case of Appellant No.
5 and any other appellant who has died during
- 82 - 2025:HHC:33209
pendency, his/her legal representatives on record
shall be paid the arrears under clause (ii) up to the
.
date of death, together with all terminal/retiral dues
recalculated consistently with clause (i), within three
months of this Judgement.
v. Compliance affidavit: The Principal Secretary,
Higher Education Department, Government of Uttar
Pradesh, or the Secretary of the U.P. Education
Services Selection Commission or the prevalent
competent authority, shall file an affidavit of
compliance before this Court within four months of
this Judgement.
20. We have framed these directions comprehensively
because, case after case, orders of this Court in such
matters have been met with fresh technicalities, rolling
"reconsiderations," and administrative drift which further
prolongs the insecurity for those who have already
laboured for years on daily wages. Therefore, we have
learned that Justice in such cases cannot rest on
simpliciter directions, but it demands imposition of clear
duties, fixed timelines, and verifiable compliance. As a
constitutional employer, the State is held to a higher
standard and therefore it must organise its perennial
workers on a sanctioned footing, create a budget for lawful
engagement, and implement judicial directions in letter
and spirit. Delay to follow these obligations is not mere
negligence but rather it is a conscious method of denial
that erodes livelihoods and dignity for these workers. The
operative scheme we have set here comprising of creation
of supernumerary posts, full regularization, subsequent
financial benefits, and a sworn affidavit of compliance, is
therefore a pathway designed to convert rights into
outcomes and to reaffirm that fairness in engagement and
transparency in administration are not matters of grace,
- 83 - 2025:HHC:33209
but obligations under Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the
Constitution of India".
.
36. Though, in afore case, Hon'ble Apex Court had an occasion
to deal with the case of outsourced employee, but if the afore
judgment is read in its entirety, it clearly suggests that long-
term extraction of regular labour under temporary labels cannot
be permitted as it corrodes public confidence. Though, Hon'ble
Apex Court in afore judgment held that Financial stringency
certainly has a place in public policy, but it is not a talisman
that overrides fairness, reason, and the duty to organize work
on lawful lines."
88. Coordinate Bench of this Court in CWPOA No. 6612 of
2019, titled as Manoj Kumar Sharma and Ors. v. State of Himachal
Pradesh and Ors., decided on 17.9.2025, wherein computer teachers
working for more than two decades were denied regularization on the
ground that they were employed by independent agencies, held as
under:
"24. Coming to the facts of the instant case, it is true that the
State Government has created a cadre of PGT for computer
education. However, it is equally true that for one reason or the
other, the long services of the petitioners have not received any
recognition. As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dharam
Singh (supra), the writ Court is not precluded from examining
the administrative action, where it amounts to omission in
discharge of public function in accordance with Constitutional
Mandate.
25. The fact that the State Government had initiated computer
education in all the GSSS in the State cannot be said to be
without objective. Computer education indisputably is core of
present educational curriculum. It forms integral part of state
- 84 - 2025:HHC:33209
governance. Thus, it is also an important part and parcel of the
discharge of public function.
.
26. In this context, the mere fact that the State had taken a
decision to outsource the infrastructure and manpower could
have relevance, as a temporary measure only to negotiate the
immediate requirements, but cannot be justified as a
permanent feature in the teeth of what has been held in
Dharam Singh and Jaggo (supra).
27. The matter can be viewed from another angle. The case of
the petitioners can be viewed in the context of ever evolving
concept of legitimate expectations, which now in Indian
conditions need not necessarily be confined to be followed by a
state promise. In Noida Entrepreneurs Association Noida &
others vs. Noida & others (2011) 6 SCC 508 the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has held that a decision taken in an arbitrary
manner contradicts the principle of legitimate expectation. An
authority is under legal obligations to exercise the powers
reasonably and in good faith to effectuate the purpose for which
the powers stood conferred.
28. In this context, "in good faith" means "for legitimate
reasons". It must be exercised bonafide for the purpose and for
none other. The principle has been followed in a later judgment
by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Jharkhand &
others vs. Brahmaputra Metallic Ltd. (2023) 10 SCC 634 by
holding that the doctrine of substantive legitimate expectation is
one of the ways in which the guarantee of non-arbitrariness
enshrined under Article 14 finds concrete expression.
29. Once the petitioners had rendered sufficient long service, in
furtherance of fulfillment of State obligation, it was the
responsibility and obligation of the State to have taken a
decision to take over or regularize the services of the petitioners,
who admittedly had the required qualification and sufficient
long experience. In the peculiar circumstances, where the
situation has turned irreversible for the petitioners, the State
- 85 - 2025:HHC:33209
Government will not be justified merely by holding that it had
framed R&P Rules and some relaxation had been made in order
.
to accommodate the petitioners and similarly situated persons.
It would only be a lip service. The net result is that the
petitioners having been rendered overage, they will not be able
to compete in open competition.
30. The petitioners are agitating for their rights since long. In
the peculiar facts of the case, the inaction of the State
Government, in my considered view can be taken cognizance of
in exercise of writ jurisdiction.
31. As noticed earlier also while disposing of LPA No. 352 of
2012 and other connected matter a Division Bench of this Court
had required the State Government to explore the possibility of
framing a policy vide judgment dated 6.5.2014, however, even
after lapse of about eleven years, nothing concrete has been
done save and except amending the service rules that too
without having practically come to the rescue of petitioners.
32. The distinction being drawn by the respondents between the
category of petitions with that of teachers regularized after
initial appointments in PAT, GVU and PTA transfer schemes is
also baseless and clearly manifests discrimination. The cardinal
purpose behind regularizing the services of above categories was
linked with permanency attached with nature of their services.
The long services rendered by the petitioners coupled with
creation of more than a thousand posts clearly establishes the
permanent nature of posts against which the petitioners have
now been working for more than two decades. Merely because
their engagement has been through outsourced agencies, which
also have changed hands from time to time, the substance of
their having worked in furtherance of State obligation cannot be
undermined.
33. Thus, keeping in view, the entire above addressed facts and
circumstances, the petition is allowed. The respondents are
directed to regularize the services of petitioners at par with the
- 86 - 2025:HHC:33209
PAT, GVU and PTA categories at least from the date of filing of
instant petition by completing the entire exercise within twelve
.
weeks from receipt of copy of this judgment. The petitioners
shall also be entitled to all consequential benefits.
89. Consequently, in view of the detailed discussion made
herein above as well as law taken into consideration, present petitions
are allowed and respondents are directed to regularize the contractual
services of the petitioners on the post they were offered engagement in
the Department of Horticulture after completion of two years
contractual service in terms of regularisation policy framed by the
Government of Himachal Pradesh.
90. In the aforesaid terms, present petitions are disposed of
alongwith pending applications, if any.
September 23, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma),
Judge
(manjit)
