Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
GURMEET SINGH SANDHAWALIA, CJ., BIPIN CHANDER NEGI
State of HP – Appellant
Versus
Bhupinder Singh Mehta – Respondent
The present appeal has been preferred against the impugned order dated 18.03.2025, passed by the learned Single Judge in CWPOA No.2979 of 2020, titled Bhupinder Singh Mehta and Ors. Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Others , whereby the learned Single Judge has directed the present appellants to regularize the services of the present respondents, in terms of communication/instructions pertaining to regularization of contractual appointees issued by the Personnel Department of the Government of Himachal Pradesh, dated 04.05.2017 (Annexure A-VI in CWPOA No.2979 of 2020) on completion of 3 years from the date of their respective contractual engagements by appellant No.3. Further the respondents herein have been held entitled to all consequential benefits from the date of regularization of the respective services as they had approached the Court in the year 2017 itself.
2. Admittedly, in the case at hand, the present respondents had been initially appointed as Computer Operators on a contract basis with effect from 01.03.2004 (Respondents No.1 and 3) and 08.03.2004 (Respondent No.2) till 30.06.2012. The aforesaid appointments had been made under the Upp
The court ruled that long-standing contractual employees performing essential government functions must be regularized, rejecting arguments of irregular initial appointments, thereby enforcing princi....
Contractual employees with long continuous service in perennial roles under project societies entitled to work charge status on parity, legitimate expectation, equity despite policy bars, distinguish....
Long-serving daily wage employees in perennial roles entitled to work charge status on parity and legitimate expectation despite policy denial, as irregular appointments warrant regularization per eq....
(1) Appeal by Special Leave – Appellant must demonstrate existence of exceptional and special circumstances warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 136 of ....
The court ruled that employees engaged continuously for over ten years are entitled to regularization, regardless of irregular appointment status, reaffirming precedents from the Supreme Court highli....
The State must uphold fair employment practices, ensuring that longstanding contractual employees receive regularization if their roles are recurring and essential to the organization.
Long-term contractual employees performing essential work are entitled to regularization despite prior undertakings barring such claims, as continuous service establishes the need for employment righ....
The State's arbitrary rejection of a long-term temporary employee's regularization claim violates constitutional rights and obligations, emphasizing the need for fair employment practices under Artic....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
