Pawan Kumar and Ors. Vs State of H.P

¶1

( 2025:HHC:46536 )

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA

¶3

CWPOA No.1720 of 2019 Decided on : 08.10.2025

¶4

____________________________________________________________ Pawan Kumar and others ...Petitioners

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of Himachal Pradesh & another

¶7

...Respondents

¶8

Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge 1 Whether approved for reporting? No. For the petitioners: Mr. Onkar Jairath, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Navlesh Verma, Additional Advocate General.

¶9

Ranjan Sharma, Judge

¶10

Petitioner-Pawan Kumar and twenty others, presently working as Clerks, Laboratory Attendants and Peons on regular basis, in the Higher Education Department of the State Government, had initially filed a Civil Writ Petition No 7252 of 2011; and upon establishment of State Administrative Tribunal the matter was transferred to the said Tribunal as Transferred Application No 2164 of 2015; and upon its abolition, the same stands retransferred to this

¶11

1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶12

2 - ( 2025:HHC:46536 )

¶13

Court as CWPOA No 1720 of 2019, wherein, the

¶14

petitioners have prayed for the following relief(s):-

¶15

“(i) That a writ in the nature of Mandamus may kindly be issued for regularizing the services of the Petitioners when they have completed 5 years of continuous service or in alternate on the completion of 8 years with all consequential benefits whereas they have been regularized after 10 to 12 years of their continuous and uninterrupted service.

¶16

(ii) That a writ in the nature of Mandamus may very kindly be issued directing the respondents to regularize the petitioners to their respective posts of Clerks/ Lab. Attendants/Peons from the due date i.e. on the completion of 5 years or in alternate on the completion of 8 years’ service with all consequential benefits like arrears of salary, seniority etc.”

¶17

FACTUAL MATRIX:

¶18

2. Case as set up by the Learned Counsel

¶19

is that the petitioners being eligible were appointed on the posts of Clerks, Laboratory Attendants and Peons in the Privately Managed Schools at different places throughout the State. It is averred that the State Government introduced a Policy on 05.02.2000 [Annexure P-1/T], deciding to upgrade/open government schools at locations, where these privately managed schools were functional and due to this, the staff

¶20

3 - ( 2025:HHC:46536 )

¶21

i.e. Teaching and Non-Teaching [Ministerial Staff]

¶22

working in these Privately Managed Schools were rendered jobless. In these circumstances, the State Government decided that the Teaching Staff who have rendered 3 years or more continuous service in these Privately Managed Schools shall be appointed on contract basis subject to a maximum period of 5 years and the Non-Teaching Staff who had rendered 3 years or more continuous service were to be appointed on daily wage basis in difficult/tribal area sub-cadre notified by the Government against vacant posts, subject to the fulfilment of the Educational Qualifications/Professional Qualifications prescribed in Recruitment and Promotion Rules and the conditions mentioned in the said decision.

¶23

2(i). It is averred that though petitioners have served in privately managed schools and they were rendered jobless due to the upgradation/opening of government schools yet for rehabilitating such staff, the State Government in terms of its policy dated 05.02.2000 {Annexure P-1} decided that the petitioners

¶24

( 2025:HHC:46536 )

¶25

4 -

¶26

being Non-Teaching Incumbents were appointed as Clerks, Laboratory Attendants and Peons on daily wage basis, under the State Government between the period from 10.11.2000 and on 04.01.2001 [Annexure P-2 (colly)].

¶27

2(ii). It is averred that the Respondents have regularized the services of petitioners belatedly as Clerks, Laboratory Attendants and Class-IV vide orders dated 10.12.2009 [Annexure P-6]; and on 23.12.2009 [Annexure P-7]; and on 24.12.2009 [Annexure P-8] and on 28.08.2010 [Annexure P-9] whereas, petitioners

¶28

were entitled to be regularized as such from the date of completion of 5 years of continuous daily wage service {between 10.11.2005 and 04.01.2006} and in the alternative from the date of completion of 8 years of continuous daily waged service {between 10.11.2008 and 04.01.2009} with the prayer to direct the Respondents to regularize the petitioners from date of completion of 5 years or 8 years of continuous daily wage service with all consequential benefits.

¶29

( 2025:HHC:46536 )

¶30

5 -

¶31

STAND OF STATE AUTHORITIES IN REPLY AFFIDAVIT :

¶32

3. Pursuant to the issuance of notice, the

¶33

State Authorities have filed the Reply-Affidavit dated 25.08.2012 of Director of Higher Education, Himachal Pradesh.

¶34

3(i). Reply-Affidavit states that based on the

¶35

decision taken by State Government on 05.02.2000 [Annexure P-1], the petitioners, were appointed as

¶36

Clerks, Laboratory Attendants and Peons in govt schools on daily wage basis and petitioners have accepted their offer of appointment on daily wage basis vide Annexures P-2 and P-3], by executing respective agreements of acceptance of appointment on daily wages. It is averred that on completion of 8 years of daily wage service as on 31.03.2009 and in terms of regularization Policy dated 28.08.2009 [Annexure P-5] the petitioners were duly regularized with prospective effect vide orders dated 10.12.2009, 23.12.2009, 24.12.2009 and orders dated 28.08.2010,

¶37

vide Annexure P-6 to P-9, and the petitioners do not have any right to seek regularization from an

¶38

6 - ( 2025:HHC:46536 )

¶39

earlier date, as in being claimed. In this backdrop, the State Authorities have prayed for the dismissal of the writ petition.

¶40

NO REBUTTAL BY PETITIONERS:

¶41

4. Petitioners have chosen not to file any

¶42

rebuttal-rejoinder to the averments contained in the Reply-Affidavit.

¶43

5. Heard, Mr. Onkar Jairath, Learned Counsel

¶44

for the petitioners and Mr. Navlesh Verma, Learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondents.

¶45

ANALYSIS:

¶46

6. Taking into account entirety of facts and

¶47

circumstances and material on record, this Court

¶48

is of the considered view that the claim of the petitioners for regularizing them in their respective categories either from the date of completion of 5 years of continuous daily wage service {between

¶49

the period from 10.11.2005 and 04.01.2006} and in the alternative from the date of completion of 8 years of continuous daily waged service {between the period from 10.11.2008 and 04.01.2009}, instead of regularizing them belatedly vide orders dated

¶50

7 - ( 2025:HHC:46536 )

¶51

10.12.2009, 23.12.2009, 24.12.2009 and 28.08.2010,

¶52

vide Annexure P-6 to Annexure P-9, does not suffer from any perversity, infirmity and illegality, for the following reasons :

¶53

ABSENCE OF REGULARISATION POLICY OR NORM DISENTITLES PETITIONERS FOR RELIEF:

¶54

6(i). First contention of Learned Counsel for the

¶55

petitioners is that after having rendered 5 years of continuous daily waged service in govt schools from the date of their appointment {between the period from 10.11.2000 to 04.01.2001 {Annexure P-2,

¶56

colly} though the petitioners were entitled to be regularized from the date of completion of 5 years of daily waged service {between the period from 10.11.2005 and 04.01.2006}, but the action of the Respondents in regularizing them belatedly between the years 2009 and 2010, vide Annexure P-6 to P-9 has resulted in depriving them of the regular status and pay fixation from such due date, illegally.

¶57

The above contention of the petitioners is

¶58

misconceived, for the reason, firstly, the petitioners were employees of the privately managed schools

¶59

( 2025:HHC:46536 )

¶60

8 -

¶61

as Clerk, Laboratory Attendants and Peon but they became jobless due to the upgradation/opening of govt schools, at places where the privately managed schools were earlier functional. Consequently, in order to rehabilitate the petitioners and others, the State government took a policy decision on 05.02.2000 [Annexure P-1] for appoint “non-teaching incumbents”, alike the petitioners in govt schools on daily wage basis and according, the petitioners were appointed in their respective categories {between the period from 10.11.2000 to 04.01.2001 {Annexure P-2, colly} and the petitioners had completed 5 years of daily waged service in govt schools {between 10.11.2005 and 04.01.2006}; and secondly, mere completion of 5 years of daily waged service will not confer any automatic right for regularization : and thirdly, petitioners have no vested right for regularization after completion of five years of service but the petitioners have a limited right of consideration, in case any rule or policy or norm existed, at the relevant time, which provided for regularization from

¶62

9 - ( 2025:HHC:46536 )

¶63

the date of completion of 5 years of continuous daily waged service; and fourthly, even the policy decision dated 05.02.2000 {Annexure P-1} did not expressly contemplate for regularizing the petitioners and other from the date of completion of 5 years of continuous daily waged service; and fifthly, even the petitioners have not placed any regularization policy or norm expressly mandating the Respondents for regularizing the petitioners and others from the date of completion of 5 years of continuous daily waged service; and sixthly, in the absence of any regularization policy or norm having been issued by State Government {at relevant time which provided for regularization after completion of 5 years of continuous daily waged service, the petitioners have neither any locus standi nor any enforceable right to claim automatic regularization from the of completion of 5 years of daily wage service ; and seventhly, nothing has been placed on record by the petitioners to assert that they have a right to be considered for regularization from the

¶64

10 - ( 2025:HHC:46536 )

¶65

of completion of 5 years of continuous daily waged service; and eighthly, nothing has been placed on record nor pleaded to assert that the juniors or similarly placed incumbents governed by policy dated 05.02.2000 {Annexure P-1} were regularized over and above the petitioners; and ninthly , during the course of hearing, the Learned State Counsel has placed on record the regularization policy notified on 19.06.2017 proving for considering daily wagers for regularization on completion of 5 years daily wage service, subject to availability of post, seniority and the fulfilment of other parameters ; and lastly, even during the course of hearing, Learned Counsel for the petitioners is unable to rebut the above. In these circumstances, the claim of the petitioners for regularization, from the date of completion of 5 years of daily waged service, {at the relevant time between the years 2005-2006, as referred to above} in absence of any regularization policy or norm to that effect, at relevant time, is ill-founded and not

¶66

11 - ( 2025:HHC:46536 )

¶67

tenable and the contention of the petitioners is

¶68

accordingly turned down.

¶69

CLAIM FOR REGULARISATION DEHORS THE CUT-OFF DATE IN POLICY DATED 29.08.2009 IMPERMISSIBLE:

¶70

6(ii). Second contention of Learned Counsel that

¶71

despite completion of 8 years of continuous daily wage service between 10.11.2008 to 04.01.2009, the regularization of the petitioners belatedly during the year 2009 and 2010, vide Annexure P-6 to P-9, has deprived them of regular status from an earlier date and resultant higher pay fixation illegally.

¶72

The above contention of Learned Counsel

¶73

is misconceived, in view of the fact that firstly, the State Authorities notified a regularization p olicy on 28.08.2009 [Annexure P-5], for considering daily wagers for regularization on completion of 8 years of continuous daily wage service as on 31.03.2009,

¶74

on the basis of seniority and fulfilment of other terms and conditions, and that too against vacant posts, with prospective effect ; and secondly, the cut-off {cut-off date 31.03.2009} prescribed in the regularization policy dated 28.08.2009 {Annexure P-5}

¶75

12 - ( 2025:HHC:46536 )

¶76

for reckoning the eligibility for being considered for regularization is sacrosanct and cannot be tinkered with; and thirdly, the petitioners who did not fulfil the requisite 8 years of daily waged service as on the cut-off date {31-03-2009} do not have any right to be considered for regularization dehors the policy; and fourthly, even policy dated 28.08.2009 {Annexure P-5} does not contemplates for automatic regularization from date of completion of 8 years of service; and fifthly, nothing has been placed on record that any junior was regularized over and above the petitioners; and sixthly, the policy dated 28.08.2009 {Annexure P-5} provided for considering the daily wagers for regularization, on fulfillment of parameters with prospective effect then, regularization orders issued after completing all codal formalities i.e. convened the screening committee and examined eligibility and all required parameters with immediate effect does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality ; and seventhly, the petitioners have not questioned the condition in the policy that regularization shall

¶77

13 - ( 2025:HHC:46536 )

¶78

have prospective effect shall certainly stands in the

¶79

way of the petitioners from seeking regularization from an earlier date by ignoring cut-off date and other terms and conditions detailed in the aforesaid policy dated 28.08.2009, Annexure P-5.; and lastly, petitioners having accepted appointment on daily wage basis in terms of policy decision dated 05.02.2000 {Annexure P-1} without any protest and demur and after having executed agreements of acceptance as such appointment in the year 2000-2001 {as per Reply Affidavit} cannot turn around in the year 2013 i.e. in instant petition, so as to seek benefit of service rendered in privately managed schools towards service now rendered on daily wages in govt schools dehors the policy 05.02.2000 {Annexure P-1} cannot be accepted and the same is accordingly turned down.

¶80

6(iii). Petitioners have chosen not to file any

¶81

rebuttal-rejoinder to the Reply-Affidavit and therefore, stand of State Authorities remains uncontroverted and accordingly, the regularization of the petitioners

¶82

14 - ( 2025:HHC:46536 )

¶83

in 2009 and 2010, vide Annexure P-6 to P-9 with prospective effect, inaccordance with the applicable regularization policy dated 28.08.2009 {Annexure P-5} does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality. The petitioners do not have any locus standi nor any enforceable claim for regularization from an earlier date, by giving a complete go-bye to cut-off date 31.03.2009 in the policy dated 28.08.2009 [Annexure P-5] and when, nothing has been placed on record that any junior has been regularized prior to the petitioners.

¶84

6(iv). Petitioners have not questioned the policy dated 05.02.2000 [Annexure P-1] and the f ailure to question the policy disentitles the petitioners for any relief(s).

¶85

7. In view of above discussion, the claim of

¶86

the petitioners for regularization from the date of completion of 5 years of daily wage service and in the alternative for regularization from the date of completion of 8 of continuous daily waged service is not tenable. Accordingly, the regularization orders

¶87

15 - ( 2025:HHC:46536 )

¶88

issued in case of the petitioners on 10.12.2009, 23.12.2009, 24.12.2009 and 28.08.2010, vide Annexure P-6 to P-9, inaccordance with applicable regularization

¶89

dated 28.08.2009 {Annexure P-5}, does not suffer from any perversity, infirmity and illegality. Claim of the petitioners for retrospective regularization dehors the regularization policy is ill-founded, untenable

¶90

and is turned down.

¶91

8. No other point has been pressed/argued.

¶92

DIRECTIONS:

¶93

9. In view of above discussion and for the

¶94

reasons recorded hereinabove, the instant petition is

¶95

dismissed in the following terms:-

¶96

(i) Claim of petitioners for regularization from the date of completion of 5 years of continuous daily wage service or the date of completion of 8 years of continuous daily wage service, is disallowed;

¶97

(ii) Claim of petitioner for regularization from earlier date dehors the applicable regularization policy dated 28.08.2008 {Annexure P-5} is disallowed;

¶98

16 - ( 2025:HHC:46536 )

¶99

(iii). Regularization of the petitioners vide orders dated 10.12.2009, 23.12. 2009 , 4.12.2009 and on 28.08.2010, vide Annexure P-6 to P-9 in terms of the regularization policy dated 28.08.2009 [Annexure P-5], does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality;

¶100

(iv) Parties to bear respective costs.

¶101

In aforesaid terms, the writ petition and

¶102

all pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall

¶103

accordingly stand disposed of.

¶104

(Ranjan Sharma) Judge

¶105

October 10, 2025 [Bhardwaj]