State of Hp and Others Vs Bal Krishan and Others — Himachal Pradesh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

State of Hp and Others Vs Bal Krishan and Others — Himachal Pradesh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Application CMP(M) No. 539 of 2026 disposed of: 193 days' delay in filing the appeal condoned; appeal to be registered as LPA No. _____ of 2026 with accompanying CMP(M); notice to respondents returnable 29th June, 2026 (steps within one week); matter listed on 29th June, 2026; operation of the impugned judgment stayed till further orders.

Issue for consideration

Contention of the State counsel, to be examined at the hearing fixed for 29.06.2026, against the direction for regularization of the respondent employees with effect from initial appointment (1998): the appointment order confined them to four hours of work per day; the reliance on the certificate recording four hours morning and four hours evening work was unjustified and the certificate was issued by an officer not competent to do so (letter dated 5.5.2021, Annexure R-6); regularization in 2016 followed completion of seven years of daily-wage service after part-time daily-wager service from 1998 to 2010; and regularization from 1998 would open a Pandora's box for similarly situated persons dehors the policy.

Ratio / Principle

Delay of 193 days in filing the appeal is condoned, the averments being duly supported by the affidavit of the official.

Key takeaways

Till further orders, pending registration of the appeal, the operation of the impugned judgment shall remain stayed.ratio¶16

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Interim bench order dated 05.05.2026 (Item S-3) in CMP(M) No. 539 of 2026, State of H.P. and others (applicants/appellants) vs. Bal Krishan and others (respondents): keeping in view the averments made in the application, duly supported by the affidavit of the official, delay of 193 days in filing the appeal is condoned and the application stands disposed of. The appeal is directed to be registered as LPA No. _____ of 2026 with accompanying CMP(M) No. ___ of 2026; notice is to be issued to the respondents, returnable for 29th June, 2026, on taking steps within one week; and, till further orders, the operation of the impugned judgment shall remain stayed. The order records the State counsel's contention (for examination on 29.06.2026) against regularization of the employees with effect from initial appointment in 1998: the appointment order confined them to four hours' work per day; the certificate showing four hours in the morning and four hours in the evening lacked justification and was issued by an officer not competent to do so (letter dated 5.5.2021, Annexure R-6); regularization in 2016 followed completion of seven years of daily-wage service after part-time daily-wager work from 1998–2010; and regularization from 1998 would, per counsel, open a Pandora's box for similarly situated persons dehors the policy. Counsel: Varun Chandel, Additional Advocate General, for the applicants/appellants/State. Signed G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice and Bipin C. Negi, Judge. The court/forum is not named in the order text.

State of H.P. and others vs. Bal Krishan and others

CMP(M) No. 539 of 2026

[Item S-3 ]

05.05.2026 Present:

Mr. Varun Chandel, Additional Advocate General, for the applicants/appellants/State.

CMP(M) No. 539 of 2026

Keeping in view the averments made in the application,

duly supported by the affidavit of the official, delay of 193 days in filing the appeal is condoned.

The application stands disposed of.

LPA No. _____ of 2026 & CMP(M) No. ___ of 2026

Be registered.

Inter alia contends that the appointment order of the employees, as such, was that they were to work for only four hours per day. While referring to page 62, it is submitted that the reliance, as such, placed upon the certificate showing that they were working four hours in the morning and four hours in the evening was also without any justification, as it has been the specific stand of the State that a part-time worker, as such, can only be engaged for a maximum of four hours. The certificate had been issued by an officer, who was not competent to do so, as is evident from letter dated 5.5.2021 (Annexure R-6), passed in this context. It is accordingly submitted that the regularization in the year 2016 has been done on completion of seven years of daily wage service, as initially the employees were only working as part-time daily wagers from 1998–2010. It is also submitted that the direction now given for regularization from the date of initial

appointment, i.e., 1998, as such, would open a Pandora’s box, as similarly situated persons would also seek such claims and consideration of which would be dehors the policy itself.

Issue notice to the respondents, returnable for

29^th June, 2026, on taking steps within one week.

Till further orders, the operation of the impugned

judgment shall remain stayed.

List on 29^th June, 2026.

(G.S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice

(Bipin C. Negi) Judge 5^th May, 2026 (Tarun Singh)