Back
2025 Supreme(HP) 1453
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESHAT SHIMLA
RANJAN SHARMA, J.
Sahi Ram - Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh And Others - Respondents
CWPOA No.6626 of 2020
Decided On : 07-10-2025
Important Points
Subject
Service Law - Regularization of Daily Wage Employees
Act Referred
Headnote
(B) Principles of delay, laches and acquiescence - Unreasonable delay causing prejudice estops equitable relief - Petitioner acquiesced by not challenging alleged breaks since 1995. (Para 7)
(C) Pension - Employee regularized post-2003 governed by New Pension Scheme but upon reintroduction of Old Pension Scheme, entitled to switch after depositing contributions. (Para 11)
Facts of the case:
Petitioner, retired daily wage beldar initially engaged in 1995, claims regularization/work charge status w.e.f. 01.01.2003 by counting 240 days service in 1995 (disputed as 204 days per mandays chart with abandonment from 21.10.1995 to 31.12.1995); granted status w.e.f. 01.01.2004 after 8 years from 1996; seeks antedating and pensionary benefits; prior tribunal directed consideration leading to 2004 status.
Findings of Court:
Regularization claim from 01.01.2003 rejected due to disputed facts, delay and acquiescence; pension under Old Pension Scheme directed upon deposit of shares.
Issues: Whether writ court can resolve disputed service days and abandonment; impact of delay/laches without industrial dispute; permissibility of new plea in rejoinder; entitlement to antedate regularization and switch pension schemes.
Ratio Decidendi: Writ jurisdiction not for complex factual disputes requiring oral evidence; must relegate to appropriate forum - material inconclusive (mandays chart vs claim); acquiescence from inaction bars belated claims; rejoinder cannot introduce inconsistent pleas or new causes. Result : Petition dismissed; regularization retained w.e.f. 01.01.2004; pensionary benefits under Old Pension Scheme directed; liberty to approach Labour Court.
For the Petitioner:Mr. P.D. Nanda, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. Hemant K. Verma, Deputy Advocate General.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. claim for regularization w.e.f. 01.01.2003 counting 1995 service. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. dispute over 204 vs 240 days; abandonment and delay alleged. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. writ court avoids seriously disputed factual issues. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. acquiescence and delay bar retrospective regularization claim. (Para 7) |
| 5. new rejoinder pleas impermissible; prior claims relinquished. (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 6. old pension granted upon contribution deposit; petition dismissed. (Para 11) |
JUDGMENT :
Ranjan Sharma, J.
Petitioner, Sahi Ram, a retired Class-IV [Beldar], has come up before this Court, seeking the following reliefs:
(i). That the directions may kindly be issued to the respondents to give the regular status to the applicant w.e.f. 01.01.2003 instead of 01.01.2004 with all consequential benefits, within time bound manner, whereby modifying the Office Order dated 25.10.2025, Annexure A-2.
(ii). That the respondents may kindly be directed to consider the case of the applicant for granting him pension and other pensionary benefits after considering him regular employee w.e.f. 01.01.2003 instead of 01.01.2004, within time bound manner.”
FACTUAL MATRIX:
2. Grievance of the petitioner is that he was initially engaged as Beldar on daily wage basis in the office of Assistant Engineer [IPH] Sub-Division Nerwa, Tehsil Chopal, District Shimla, [HP] on 26.03.1995 and he has completed 240 days in each calendar year during the year 1995 and thereafter. It is further averred that though petitioner had completed 08 years of continuous service on daily wage basis but his services were neither regularized nor was he granted work charge status by the respondents. Due to this, he filed an Original Application No.4777 of 2016, titled Sahi Ram versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Others, which was disposed of by Learned State Administrative Tribunal on 21.09.2016 [Annexure A-1], with direction to the State Authorities to consider the case of the petitioner, strictly in view of the principles laid down by this Court in CWP No.2735 of 2010, titled Rakesh Kumar versus State of H.P. & Ors. and connected matters, decided on 28.07.2010. It is averred that pursuant to these directions the Respondent-State Authorities issued an Office Order on 28.10.2015 [Annexure A-2], granting regularization/work charge status to the petitioner from the date of completion of 08 years of continuous service with 240 days w.e.f. 01.01.2004. It is averred that though the petitioner had completed 240 days during the year 1995 but the respondents have not granted the benefit of said period of service for granting regularization/work charge status and in case, the said period of 1995 is counted, therefore, the benefit is accorded the petitioner deserves to be granted regularization/work charge status w.e.f. 01.01.2003, instead of 01.01.2004 as in Annexure A-2, with all consequential benefits.
STAND OF THE STATE AUTHORITIES IN THE REPLY AFFIDAVIT:
3. Pursuant to the issuance of notice, the State Authorities have filed the Reply-Affidavit dated 22.07.2019 of Superintending Engineer [IPH], Circle Shimla-9.
3(i). Perusal of Reply-Affidavit states as per the Mandays Chart, [Annexure R-1], that the petitioner was engaged as Beldar on daily wage basis on 26.03.1995 and he worked as such up to 20.10.1995 but he left the job at his own on 21.10.1995 and the petitioner had completed 204 days during the year 1995 up to 20.10.1995. It is further averred that the petitioner returned for work w.e.f. 01.01.1996 and based on continuous service rendered thereafter, the petitioner was granted regularization/work charged status w.e.f. 01.01.2004. Reply-affidavit indicates that the petitioner is not entitled for pension under the CCS [Pension] Rules 1972 but is governed by the Contributory Pension Scheme [referred to as New Pension Scheme] in view of the fact, that he was appointed after 15.05.2003 on regular/work charge basis.
3.(ii). Reply-affidavit further indicates that the Original Application, seeking g
