Chaman Lal vs State of H.P. - 2026 Supreme(Online)(HP) 904

Headnote Court Copy Facts Arguments Court observation Judicial Analysis Case Map Category Hierarchy Table of Content

2026 Supreme(Online)(HP) 904

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, J
Chaman Lal – Appellant
Versus
State of H.P. – Respondent
CWPOA No.2612 of 2019

Important Points

The State, as a model employer, cannot deny wages to an individual who actually performed duties for the department solely on the ground that the appointment was not issued by the competent authority, even if regularization is denied.

Subject

Service Law - Regularization and Wages

Act Referred

Constitution of India: Art.14, Art.16

Headnote

(A) Employment Law - Wages for Unregularized Service - Model Employer Doctrine - Where it is admitted or proven that a person performed duties for the State, the State cannot deny wages on the ground that the appointment was not made by a competent authority, as the State must act as a model employer. (Para 12)

(B) Regularization of Service - Lack of Policy Coverage - Claim for regularization cannot be sustained if the person was not appointed by a competent authority and does not satisfy the criteria of any existing government regularization policy. (Para 10)

Issues: Whether the petitioner is entitled to regularization or payment of wages despite not being appointed by a competent authority.

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: I.D. Bali, J.D. Sharma
For the Respondents: Sumit Sharma

Table of Content
1. challenge to the rejection of appointment as revenue chowkidar despite years of service. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5)
2. arguments regarding violation of articles 14 and 16 and the lack of competent appointment. (Para 6 , 7 , 8)
3. denial of regularization due to lack of policy coverage and incompetent appointment. (Para 9 , 10)
4. the model employer doctrine necessitates payment of wages for actual work rendered. (Para 11 , 12)
5. order for payment of seven years of wages with potential interest. (Para 13 , 14)

Whether approved for reporting?, (Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.)

For the petitioner: Mr.I.D. Bali, Senior Advocate

with Mr.J.D. Sharma, Advocate.

For the respondents: Mr.Sumit Sharma, Deputy

Advocate General.

Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge (Oral)

The petitioner, by way of present petition, has laid challenge to the office order dated 23.09.2013 (Annexure P-3) passed by respondent No.2, whereby the claim of the petitioner for appointment on the post of Chowkidar has been rejected, since his case was not covered as per policy dated 27.02.2004 or any other policy.

2. As per the pleadings in the writ petition, the petitioner has averred that he was engaged as Revenue Chowkidar at Patwar Circle Nabahi Tehsil Sarkaghat, District Mandi, H.P. in the year 1997. He was initially engaged by the then Patwari of Nabahi Patwar Circle namely Shri Inder Pal and the concerned Kanungo of the aforesaid

Patwar Circle Shri Hem Raj Negi. However, no written appointment letter was issued to him. The petitioner had been discharging all the duties of Revenue Chowkidar, such as assisting the Patwari in the Patwar Circle, serving summons, notices and all other processes to the people within the Patwar Circle. The petitioner had rendered his services from 1997 till the filing of the writ petition, on a very meager amount, which was paid to him for the service of processes.

3. It has been averred that the similarly situated Revenue Chowkidars, posted in other Patwar Circles, who were engaged even after the engagement of the petitioner, have been granted daily wage status by the respondents, but the petitioner was discriminated even after completion of 16 years of service.

4. The petitioner had approached this Court by filing a writ petition, bearing CWP No.3099 of 2012. The said petition was disposed of on 2nd May, 2012. (Annexure P-1), directing the petitioner to file appropriate representation before the 2nd respondent, who was directed to take appropriate action in terms of policy dated 27.02.2004.

5. In pursuance of the representation made by the petitioner, the claim of the petitioner was considered by respondent No.2, who vide office order dated 23.09.2013 (Annexure P-3) rejected his claim for appointment as Revenue Chowkidar, since the

claim raised was not covered under the policy dated 27.02.2004 or any other policy. While rejecting the claim of the petitioner, respondent No.2 had noticed that as per detailed inquiry made by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil), Sarkaghat, District Mandi, H.P., the petitioner was not offered appointment by any competent authority. However, as per report of Patwari, Patwar Circle, Nabahi, the petitioner had served for 7-8 years without any wages. It has also been recorded in the order that the petitioner was not presently working in the office as Chowkidar.

6. Learned Senior Counsel representing the petitioner has vehemently argued that once it is admitted by the respondents that the petitioner had worked as Revenue Chowkidar, the action on the part of the respondents in not converting his services as daily wager, as per policy of the Government and thereafter regularizing his service, is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, for the reason that the services of the similarly situated persons have been converted as daily wagers. He further argued that the respondents are reluctant to engage the petitioner on daily wage basis even after rendering 1