Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(HP) 3281
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J
Nanak Chand – Appellant
Versus
State of H.P. & Ors. – Respondent
CWP No.6984 of 2023
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Rahul Mahajan
For the Respondents: Ms. Menka Raj Chauhan
The validity of continuous service claims despite prior interruptions is upheld, reinforcing the rights for regularization under state policies.
Headnote:The court examined the petitioner's request for retrospective regularization of service based on eight years of uninterrupted service as per the state’s regularization policy. It was established that the petitioner was engaged in continuous service and that prior interruptions were unjustified. The court determined that the claim was not barred by delay, given an earlier favorable award from the Labour Court which recognized the continuity of service. Ultimately, the petition was allowed, directing respondents to consider the regularization of the petitioner's service accordingly. The petition is allowed, and the respondents are directed to undertake the regularization process within four weeks.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. award at labour court establishes claim's validity. (Para 4) |
Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua 1 Whether approved for reporting?
_________________________________________________________________
For the petitioner: Mr. Rahul Mahajan, Advocate.
For the respondents: Ms. Menka Raj Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General.
Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Petitioner seeks retrospective regularization on completion of eight years of service w.e.f. 01.01.2007 in regular pay scale applicable to the cadre post with all consequential benefits incidental thereof.
2 From the joint submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, it emerges that:-
2(i). Petitioner was initially engaged in HPPWD as daily waged Beldar w.e.f. 05.10.998.
2(ii). According to the respondents, petitioner remained
1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes intermittent daily waged worker during the years 1998 to 2007. He worked continuously for minimum of 240 days in each calendar year w.e.f. 2008 onwards. Accordingly, petitioner’s services were regularized upon his completion of seven years of continuous service vide office order dated 18.08.2015 as per applicable Regularization Policy of the State. Petitioner joined as regular Class-IV employee on
19.08.2015.
2(iii). According to the respondents, petitioner’s present claim for regularizing his services on completion of eight years w.e.f. 01.01.2007 is barred by delay and laches.
3. The objection of delay and laches raised by the respondents does not hold good in the given facts and the documents on record. It is not in dispute that in relation to an industrial dispute raised by the petitioner, Reference No.380 of 2012, was registered on 29.11.2012 in the learned Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal, Kangra at Dharamshala, to adjudicate the following reference:-
"Whether termination of the services of Sh. Nanak Chand S/C Sh. Hari Singh, Village Passal, Post Office Chauntra, Tehsil Joginder Nagar, Distt. Mandi, H.P. from time to time as beldar during 5-10-1998 to 31-8-2007 by the Executive Engineer HPPWD Division Joginder Nagar, Distt. Mandi, H.P. without complying the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is legal and justified? If not, what amount of back wages, seniority, past service benefits and compensation the above Ex-Worker is entitled to from the above employer?"
Vide award dated 14.01.2022, learned Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal, Kangra at Dharamshala, allowed the claim petition preferred by the petitioner. It was held that the breaks given by the respondents to the petitioner from 05.10.1998 to 31.08.2007 were artificial/fictional in nature and consequentially illegal and unjustified. This break period was ordered to be counted for the purpose of continuous service except back wages. Petitioner was further held to be in continuous uninterrupted service with the respondents from 05.10.1998 to 31.08.2007. His seniority was directed to be reckoned from the date of his engagement i.e. 05.10.1998. The operative directions of the award are as under: -
“18. As a sequel to the findings of this Court on the issues above, the claim petition succeeds and is allowed in part. It is held that the breaks given by respondent to the petitioner from 5.10.1998 to 31.3.2007 were artificial/fictional in nature and consequently illegal and unjustified. This break period is ordered to be counted for the purpose of continuous service except back wages. Petitioner is held to be in continuous uninterrupted service with the respondent from 5.10.1998 to 31.8.2007. His seniority shall be reckoned from the date of his engagement i.e. 5.10.1998. The parties are left to bear their costs. The reference is answered in above terms. A copy of this Award be sent to the appropriate Government for publication in the official gazette. File after due completion be consigned to the Record Room.”
The contention of delay and laches urged for respondents does not carry any substance in view of the award
