IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.2121 of 2022 Date of Decision: 10.09.2025 __________________________________________________________

Tarlesh Bali and Others ……..Petitioners Versus H State of H.P. and Others ….Respondents __________________________________________________________

Coram:

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting? ¹ For the Petitioners: Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, Sr. Advocate, with Mr.

Rajesh Ktumar, Advocate.

For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr.

uB.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for State.

__________________________________________________________

Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral):

Petitioners herein, who were engaged in the year 1996 and

1997 respectively, as Beldar on daily wage basis were not permitted to complete 240 days in each calendar year, as a result thereof, they despite their having put in more than eight years of daily wage service, Hwere not regularised and as such, approached this Court by way of CWP(T) No.1129 of 2008, titled as Tarlesh Bali and Others Vs. State of H.P. and Others, specifically alleging therein that w.e.f. the year 1996-97 till year 2005, they have been purposely given artificial/fictional breaks by respondents with a view to prevent them from claiming regularisation, after their having completed eight years of daily wage service. Coordinate Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 17.05.2010 (Annexure P-1) allowed the petition and while setting aside the action of

1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

the respondents of giving artificial/fictional breaks, specifically observed in the judgment that artificial/fictional breaks given to the petitPioners are condoned, only for the purpose of seniority, meaning thereby that petitioners in afore case could not have claimed monetary benefits for a period starting from 1996-97 till 2005.

2. Since despite there being aforesaid directions issued by this Court in case detailed hereinabove, petitioners herein were not regularised, petitioners filed contempt petition, but before same could be decided, respondents after having taken note of the fact that petitioners have completed more than eight years of service w.e.f. 2005, with 240 days in each calendar year, regularised their services in the year 2013, however, subsequently in contempt proceedings, an affidavit, enclosing therewith order thereby regularising the services of the petitioner w.e.f. 01.01.2005, came to be filed, as a result thereof, petitioners herein now stand regularised w.e.f. 01.01.2005.

H3. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, learned Senior Counsel representing the petitioner is that since w.e.f. the year 2005, petitioners had been working continuously on regular basis, they could not have been denied monetary benefits qua the afore period and no order, if any, was ever passed by this Court while disposing of the CWP(T) No.1129 of 2008 that arrears, if any, on account of work charge status/regularisation shall be restricted for a period of three years prior to filing of the petition. Though petitioners repeatedly filed representations, requesting therein respondenPts to grant them actual monetary benefits w.e.f. 2005 till their regularisation, but since no decision was taken thereupon, they are compelled to approach this Court in the instant proceedings, praying there in for following reliefs:

“i. That appropriate writ, order or direction may very kindly be issued directing the respondents to pay the salary of regularly appointed Beldar to the petiti oners even after 01.01.2007 till the date of issuing of regularizationt order with effect from 01.01.2005 by further directing the respondernts to pay the entire arrears to the petitioners, in the interest of ulaw and justice.

ii. That appropriate writ, order or direction may very kindly