SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(HP) 198

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
GURMEET SINGH SANDHAWALIA, CJ., BIPIN CHANDER NEGI, J.
State of HP and Others - appellants.
Versus
Pradeep Kumar - Respondent.
LPA No.145 of 2026
Decided on: 17-03-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the appellants :Mr. Pranay Pratap Singh, Additional Advocate General.

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, distinguishing irregular from illegal appointments.

Headnote:(A) Service Jurisprudence - Regularization of contractual employees - Employee engaged as driver on contractual basis in externally aided watershed development projects continuously from 2010 - Governed by society policy explicitly stating no right to regularization - Single Judge directed consideration for grant of work charge status from due date per precedents involving similarly situated employees - Division Bench upheld, dismissing appeal - Perennial and fundamental nature of work, long continuous unblemished service, legitimate expectation from repeated extensions, parity with granted relief, inequality of bargaining power warrant regularization despite policy - Perpetual contractual engagements under nominal labels decried as exploitative ad-hocism - Distinction between illegal and irregular appointments; Uma Devi not to penalize long-serving fulfilling ongoing functions - Courts to look beyond labels to realities of continuous indispensable service. (Paras 1-17)

(B) Legitimate Expectation - Arises from long continuous service on contractual posts with repeated extensions preventing alternative employment - Based on express/implied promise or consistent practice - Operates in public law against arbitrary State action - Applies where State exploits unequal bargaining power in unfair contracts. (Paras 15-16)

Facts of the case:
Contractual driver initially engaged in time-specific externally aided project from 20.11.2010 to 31.3.2017, continued in another project till date. Society reply admits similarity to prior cases granted work charge status after eight years continuous service, upheld up to Apex Court with notional benefits. Single Judge directed consideration within six weeks per those precedents.

Findings of Court:
No error in Single Judge order; appellants to comply with direction for work charge status and benefits as per law.

Issues: Entitlement to work charge status despite society policy barring regularization; applicability of parity, equity principles over policy; validity of perpetual contractual exploitation.

Ratio Decidendi: Relief on parity undeniable as similarity admitted and prior relief affirmed up to Apex Court; work neither temporary nor occasional but perennial essential; fair humane resolution paramount for irregular long-term engagements; doctrine of legitimate expectation from extensions; strike unfair clauses due to unequal bargaining; State must avoid ad-hocism and lead in fair employment.

Result: Letters Patent Appeal dismissed; Single Judge judgment upheld.

Table of Content
1. continuous contractual driver engagement in projects (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. society policy bars government service regularization (Para 4 , 5 , 6)
3. precedents grant work charge after eight years (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11)
4. similarity admission requires parity relief (Para 12)
5. perennial duties demand regularization despite labels (Para 13)
6. perpetual contracts deprecate ad-hocism exploitation (Para 14)
7. prolonged service creates legitimate expectation (Para 15)
8. unequal power invalidates unfair contract clauses (Para 16)
9. upholds direction for work charge status (Para 17)

JUDGMENT :

BIPIN CHANDER NEGI, J.

The present Letters Patent Appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment dated 20th June, 2025, whereby the present appellants have been directed to consider the case of the present respondent for grant of work charge status and regularization of the service of the present respondent from the due date, in accordance with law as laid down in Sant Ram and another vs. State of H.P bearing CWPOA No. 3562 of 2019 decided on 6.9.2022, and Bhupender Singh Mehta and another vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and another bearing CWPOA No. 2979 of 2020 decided on 18.3.2025. The aforesaid, as per the impugned judgment, is required to be done within six weeks. Benefits, if any, flowing to the present respondent are also to be released within the aforesaid period.

2.The admitted facts in the case at hand are that the respondent was initially engaged as a Driver on contractual basis in time specific externally aided project namely HP Mid Himalayan Watershed Development Project (HPMHWDP) from 20.11.2010 to 31.3.2017. Thereafter the respondent was engaged as such in another externally aided project namely Integrated Development Project for Source Sustainability and Climate Resilient Rain-fed Agriculture (IDP) from 1.4.2017 till date. (See preliminary submission No. 1 in the reply filed by respondent No. 3/present appellant No.3 to the writ petition placed at page 268 of the paper book)

3.Besides the aforesaid, in the reply filed to the writ petition, it has been categorically averred by present appellant No. 3 that the present respondent is a member of the H.P. Natural Resource Management Society and is, therefore, governed by its rules and policy.

4.Alongwith the reply filed by present appellant No. 3 to the writ petition, Notification dated 19.4.2017 (Annexure R-2) had been placed on record (page 286 of the paper book). From a perusal of the Notification, it is evident that the Himachal Pradesh Forest Department had implemented the following projects, namely, Kandi Project I & II (1990–2005), Indo German Changer Project (1992– 2006), H.P. Mid Himalayan Watershed Development Project (2005–2017), and the Swan River Project Una (2006–2016). Vide the aforesaid Notification, a policy was sought to be framed to regulate the service conditions of the staff engaged in the aforesaid projects.

5.From a perusal of clause 4.1 of the policy so framed, it is evident that the Himachal Pradesh Natural Resource Management Society is the controlling authority for all project staff executed under the H.P. Forest Department irrespective of the project they worked in and the funding agency. In clause 6.1 of the policy it has been mentioned that the staff engaged in the projects shall not be the employees of the H.P. Government and all decisions regarding the deployment and service conditions of the project staff will be taken by the society. Other than the aforesaid, it has been categorically specified in the aforesaid clause that the appointment shall not confer any right on the incumbent for regularization of service at any stage in the Government of Himachal Pradesh.

6.Further, perusal of Clause 2 of the policy specifically 2.1 therein, reflects that in case the aforesaid society has no funds to pay then employees of the said society can be seconded/deputed to the Forest Department/other departments in their present status, i.e. contract ba


Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top