IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No. 6559 of 2022 Decided on : 12.03.2026 Roshan Lal …Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others …Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge Whether approved for reporting?

For the petitioner : Mr. Surinder Kumar Sharma, Advocate.

For the respondents : Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, Additional Advocate General Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral CMP No. 3881 of 2026 i In view of the averments made in the application for early hearing, the same is allowed. Application stands disposed of accordingly.

CWP No. 6559 of 2022

2. With the consent of the parties, the matter is being disposed of at this stage, today itself.

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

3. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs:-

“(i) That the respondents may kindly be directed to regularize the services of the petitioner as Class-IV employee retrospectively strictly as per the policy prevalent during the year 2016-17 and thereafter the respondents may further be directed to grant all consequential bene fits to the petitioner, like seniority, pay fixation etc. alongwith arrears of salary with interest @ 9% uper annum;

(ii) That the respondents may kindly be directed to grant and pay the regular pay scale of Class-IV employee to the petitioner forthwith.”

4. The case of the petitioner is that he was engaged on daily wage basis on 01.12.2009 and his services were terminated verbally on 13.10.2010. The petitioner raised an industrial dispute and the following reference was made by the appropriate Government to the learned Labour Court:-

“Whether termination of services of Shri Roshan Lal S/o Shri Gopal Chand, R/o Village Palag, PO Kandaghat, Tehsil Sunni, District Shimla, HP by the Block Development Officer, Development Block Basantpur, Tehsil Sunni, District Shimla, HP w.e.f. September, 2010 without complying with the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is legal and justified? If not, what amount of back-wages, past service benefits, seniority and compensation the above worker is entitled to from the above employer?”

5. The reference was answered by the learned Labour Court in terms of Award dated 04.01.2016 (Annexure P-1), relevant portion whereof is quoted hereinbelow:-

“20. As a sequel to my above discussion and findings oon issues no.1 to 3, the claim of the petitioner succeeds and is hereby partly allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be reinstated in service forthwith with seniority and hcontinuity. However, the petitioner is not entitled to back wages and as such the reference is answered in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent. Let a copy H of this award be sent to the appropriate government for publication in official gazette. File, after completion, be consigned to records.”

6. Thereafter, the petitioner stands reengaged, but the grievance of the petitioner is that he has not been conferred the benefit of regularization in terms of the policy of the Government and hence the petition.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in light of the Award passed by the learned Labour Court, as the petitioner was ordered to be reinstated in service with seniority and continuity, the petitioner had a right to be regularized in terms of the policy of the State Government by taking the date of his initial engagement as a daily wager to be 01.12.2009. He submitted that till now, the services of the petitioner have not been regularized uand this act of the respondents is bad in law because denoial of regularization to the petitioner in terms of the policy Cof the State Government is nothing but arbitrary and discriminatory. Learned counsel also referred to Annexure P-5, appended with the petition and submitted that time and again the Authority has recommended the case of the petitioner for regularization to the Higher Authority, but needful has not been done till date.

8. On the other