IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No.13574 of 2024 th Decided on 06 March 2026 Gulzar Mohd.

…Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others …Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge

1 Whether approved for reporting?

For the petitioner: Ms. Archna Dutt, Advocate.

For the respondents: Mr. Rajat Chauhan, Assistant Advocate General, for respondents No.1 and 3.

Mr. Naveen Bhardwaj, Advocate, for respondent No.2.

Mr. Tek Ram Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.4.

Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs:-

(i) “That the impugned Annexure P-6 and P-7 may kindly be quashed and set aside by issuing a writ of certiorari.

(ii) That the respondents may kindly be directed to regularize the services of the petitioner after completion of 8 years i.e. 31.12.2001 as per policy of the State Government and petitioner may be granted the arrears of pay scale and other financial benefits w.e.f. due date i.e. w.e.f. 2005 when the agreement has been executed betwee.n the employees of AIPIL with the State GovePrnment.

(iii) That the petitioner may be considered as Class-III employee at the time of petitioner was sent on secondment basis with responHdent No.3.

(iv) That the respondents may kindly be directed to grant pension and pensionary benefits in the interest of justice and fair play.”

2. As the facts are not much in dispute and as the legal position relating to the relief prayed for is also no more res-integra, the foullowing facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition aore being mentioned:-

3. CThe petitioner was engaged on daily wage basis as a Mechanical Fitter with respondent No.2 in the year 1993. In the year 2007, as the petitioner alongwith other employees of respondent No.2 were declared surplus, they were sent on H secondment basis to various departments of the Government.

The petitioner was transferred as a Chowkidar on secondment basis to respondent No.3-Department, as per Annexure P-2. Thereafter, the services of the petitioner were regularized on

31.05.2008 which is not in dispute.

4. The petitioner initially approached the Court by way of CWP No.6871 of 2010, titled as Gulzar Mohd. Versu.s State of Himachal Pradesh and others, praying for his regularization upon completion of 10 years of continuouHs service, which writ petition was disposed of by this Court in terms of Annexure P-4 dated 19.06.2012 with the direction that when the petitioner completes 10 years of continuous service with minimum of 240 days in each calendar year, he shall be entitled to work charge status/regularizatiuon. It was further observed in this order that if the petitioneor had already completed 10 years continuous serviceC with 240 days in each calendar year, as on the day of the passing of the judgment, his case shall be considered by respondents No.1 and 2 therein and they shall pass appropriate orders within three months. Said judgment was assailed by the H State by way of a Letters Patent Appeal. Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in terms of Annexure P-5 dated 20.11.2012 upheld the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Single Judge and directed that as the State had, in the interregnum, introduced a new policy for regularization after completion of 7 years of daily wage service, subject to availability of post, the case of the petitioner be considered in terms of the said policy.

5. It transpires that thereafter two orders hav.e been passed by the Competent Authority, one order is Annexure P-6 dated 29.01.2016, passed by ExcHise and Taxation Commissioner Himachal Pradesh which as per the petitioner, was made available to him vide Annexure P-6 dated 05.12.2019 and the other order dated 16.03.2017 (Annexure P-7) passed by Principal Secretary (Hort.) to the Government of Huimachal Pradesh, in terms whereof, the case of the petitiooner for conferment of work charge status has been rejecteCd on the ground that AIPIL was not a work charge est