Back
2025 Supreme(HP) 429
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
SATYEN VAIDYA, J.
Bhoop Singh - Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. & Another - Respondents
CWP No. 8146 of 2021
Decided On : 16-05-2025
For the Petitioner: Ms. Samriti Sharma.
For the Respondents:Mr. Baldev Negi, Additional Advocate General.
The court ruled that fictional breaks to deny service continuity are impermissible, affirming the right to regularization under the state's policy for continuous daily wage employees.
Headnote:
(A) Regularization Policy - Service Regularization - The petitioner sought regularization of service after 8 years as Beldar, citing the policy and a prior judgment. The office order rejecting the claim was deemed arbitrary. (Paras 1, 6, 18)
(B) Employment Rights - The court emphasized that fictional breaks to deny service continuity are impermissible. (Paras 15, 16)
(C) Delay and Laches - The court found no delay in filing the petition as prior proceedings were ongoing. (Paras 25, 26)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, engaged since 1984, claimed regularization after retirement in 2016, asserting completion of required service days.
Findings of Court:
The court found the rejection of the petitioner's claim based on misinterpretation of the regularization policy and directed the respondents to consider the case for regularization.
Issues: The main issues included the validity of the office order rejecting regularization and the treatment of service days.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the petitioner was entitled to regularization based on continuous service and that fictional breaks were not permissible.
Result: The petition was allowed, and the impugned order was quashed.
JUDGMENT :
Satyen Vaidya, J.
The instant petition has been filed for the following substantive reliefs:
(i) That the directions may kindly be issued to the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioner on completion of 8 years service from the year, 2003 as Beldar in view of the policy of regularization and in view of the judgment of the Rakesh Kumar (supra), immediately with all consequential benefits.
(i)(a) That the impugned office order dated 12.11.2020, Annexure P-6, issued by the Divisional Forest Officer, Kunihar Forest Division i.e respondent No.2, may kindly be quashed and set aside, being illegal and arbitrary.
(ii) That the respondents may also be directed to count the period during 2001 & 2002 spent by the petitioner under Sanjhi Van Yojna at Rampur for the purpose of completion of 240 days at par with other similar situate persons.”
2. The petitioner was engaged as daily wage Beldar under Kunihar Forest Division in the year 1984. Petitioner remained on daily wages till his retirement. According to the petitioner, he has retired on 30.06.2016, but the respondents have stated the date of retirement of the petitioner to be 30.06.2014.
3. The petitioner has been fighting for regularization of his services under the regularization policy of the State Government. According to petitioner, he had completed eight years of continuous daily wage service with 240 days in each calendar year and had thereby become eligible for regularization but the respondents had wrongfully denied the benefit of regularization policy to him.
4. The petitioner in the first instance raised an industrial dispute in the year 2006 seeking regularization of his service on completion of ten years w.e.f. 01.01.1994. The appropriate authority made a reference to the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Shimla registered as reference No. 4 of 2009. The Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Shimla answered the reference in negative vide award dated 03.09.2014 by holding that the petitioner had not completed continuous daily wage service of eight years between 1984 to 1994. The petitioner assailed the award dated 03.09.2014, passed by Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Shimla before this Court by way of CWP No. 7554 of 2014. The said writ was dismissed on 28.2.2019, however, liberty was reserved in favour of the petitioner to make a claim for regularization by availing an appropriate mechanism only with respect to the years following 1994.
5. The petitioner then filed OA No. 2436 of 2019 before the Erstwhile State Administrative Tribunal. Learned Tribunal disposed of the said Original Application in following terms:
6.“ In view of the above, the original application is disposed of in terms of the aforementioned judgment in CWP No. 2735 of 2010 and the connected matters and keeping in view the fact that the applicant had put in more than 240 days in each calendar year beginning from 2003 to 2013, with a direction to the respondents/competent authority, that subject to the above verification and on finding the applicant to be similarly situate as above, benefit of the said judgment, if the same has attained finality/implemented, shall be extended to him alongwith consequential benefits, if any, as per law, within three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order before the said authority by the applicant.”
6. In compliance, the Divisional Forest Officer, Kunihar Forest Division passed an office order dated 12.11.2020 (Annexure P-6) and thereby rejected the case of the petitioner on the ground that since the H.P. Forest Department was not a work charge establishment, the case of petitioner was not similar to the case Rakesh Kumar vs. State of H.P. & Ors. CWP No. 2735 of 2010 decided on 28.07.2010.
7. The office order dated 12.11.2020, passed by respondent No.2 has been assailed in the instant petition.
8. Respondents by way of their reply have supported the impugned office order dated 12.11.2020, by reiterating the stand that the Fo
