Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(HP) 203

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
GURMEET SINGH SANDHAWALIA, CJ., BIPIN CHANDER NEGI, J.
State of HP and Others - appellants
Versus
Hari Krishan - Respondent.
LPA No.144 of 2026
Decided on : 17-03-2026

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

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 equity principles distinguishing from illegal ones.

Headnote:(A) Service Law - Regularization of daily wage employees - Continuous engagement since 2000 in successive watershed development projects on daily wage basis till date - Policy framed for project staff specifies not employees of government, no right to regularization - However, on parity with similarly situated employees granted work charge status after eight years continuous service, relief upheld by Division Bench and affirmed by Apex Court with notional benefits - Nature of work perennial and integral to organization functioning - Legitimate expectation from prolonged unblemished service and repeated extensions - Single Judge direction to consider for work charge status from due date upheld. (Paras 1-17)

(B) Distinction between illegal and irregular appointments - Mechanical reliance on prior rulings deprecated - Perpetual engagement under temporary labels exploitative, culture of ad-hocism deprecable - Duties recurrent and fundamental necessitate regularization despite absence of regular posts - Doctrine of legitimate expectation applies where continuous service restrains alternative employment - Unequal bargaining power warrants striking unfair terms. (Paras 13-16)

Facts of the case:
Daily wage worker initially engaged in one project from 2000-2005, continued in subsequent projects till date. Society governing project staff admitted parity with prior cases where work charge status granted. Policy allowed deputation on same basis if no funds, retaining lien in society.

Findings of Court:
Learned Single Judge correctly directed consideration for work charge status and regularization per specified precedents within six weeks, with flowing benefits.

Issues: Whether policy barring regularization overrides parity, continuous service, perennial duties, and legitimate expectation for similarly situated long-serving daily wagers.

Ratio Decidendi: Prolonged continuous service in perennial roles creates legitimate expectation for recognition; principles of equity and fairness mandate regularization despite policy labels, distinguishing irregular appointments amenable to one-time measure; refusing parity contrary to justice.

Result: Letters Patent Appeal dismissed; impugned judgment upheld.

Table of Content
1. continuous daily wage service in watershed projects since 2000. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. society policy denies government regularization to project staff. (Para 4 , 5 , 6)
3. precedents uphold work charge status after eight years. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11)
4. similarity admission requires parity in regularization relief. (Para 12)
5. perennial duties and ad-hocism justify employee regularization. (Para 13 , 14)
6. prolonged service generates legitimate regularization expectation. (Para 15)
7. unequal bargaining power voids unfair employment terms. (Para 16)
8. single judge order upheld; appeal dismissed. (Para 17)

JUDGMENT :

BIPIN CHANDER NEGI, J.

The present Letters Patent Appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment dated 30th 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 present respondent was initially engaged in the Integrated Watershed Development Project, (IWDP) Kandi from 4.2.2000 to 30.9.2005. Subsequently the respondent was engaged in HP Mid Himalayan Watershed Development Project (HPMHWDP) from 2005 to 2017 and thereafter till date the respondent is working on Daily Wage basis in a project named Integrated Development Project for Source Sustainability and Climate Resilient Rain-fed Agriculture (IDP) (See preliminary submission No. 1 in the reply filed by respondent No. 3 present appellant No.3 to the writ petition placed at page 175 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 formed in 2006 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) has been placed on record (page 191 of the paper book). From a perusal of the Notification, it is evident that the Himachal Pradesh Forest Department has 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 framed to regulate the service conditions of the staff engaged in the aforesaid projects, Annexure-A thereto.

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 t