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

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

92 days' delay in filing the appeal condoned and the delay application (CMP(M) No.925 of 2026) disposed of; appeal to be registered (LPA No.______of 2026) and admitted; notice to the respondents ordered, returnable within four weeks; operation of the learned Single Judge's order stayed to the extent of the leave benefit granted to the contractual employee.

Issue for consideration

From what date should the writ petitioner's regularization benefit run — w.e.f. 16.03.2021 as ordered by the learned Single Judge, or with prospective effect per the regularization Policy and aligned with the date his contemporaries were regularized (w.e.f. 08.10.2021)? +2 more

Court's answer

Court's considered opinion: the petitioner can only be granted the benefit of regularization with effect from the date his contemporaries were also granted the benefits, w.e.f. 08.10.2021.

Ratio / Principle

Operation of the learned Single Judge's order shall remain stayed to the extent that it held out the benefit of leave granted to the contractual employee, which is not permissible.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Himachal Pradesh (G.S. Sandhawalia, C.J. and Bipin C. Negi, J.), order dated 17.06.2026 on admission: a 92-day delay in the State's appeal (filed via CMP(M) No.925 of 2026) against a learned Single Judge's order regularizing the writ petitioner w.e.f. 16.03.2021 with benefits under the Policy dated 28.12.2021 (Annexure P-7) was condoned; the appeal was registered and admitted, with notice to the respondents returnable within four weeks. Recording the Additional Advocate General's contentions — prospective effect per Clause-9 of the Policy, and the applicability of the Policy dated 30.03.2021 prescribing three years' continuous service as on 30.09.2021 — the Court expressed the considered opinion that the petitioner's regularization benefit could run only from 08.10.2021, the date his contemporaries were granted benefits (per the State's stand in Paragraph-6 of the written statement), and stayed operation of the Single Judge's order to the extent it conferred leave benefits on the contractual employee, being not permissible. The matter was admitted for further consideration. Appointment dates appear inconsistently across the text as 22.09.2018, 29.09.2018 and 27.09.2018, reproduced as printed.

Item No.S-8 The State of Himachal Pradesh and others vs. Surinder

CMP(M) No.925 of 2026

17.06.2026 Present: Mr. Gobind Korla, Additional Advocate General, for the applicants-appellants/State.

CMP(M) No.925 of 2026

Delay of 92 days in filing the present appeal is condoned in view of the averments made in the application duly supported by an affidavit. The application stands disposed of.

LPA No.______of 2026

It be registered.

On taking steps within a week, issue notice to the respondents, returnable within four weeks.

Inter alia contends that regularization of the petitioner has been ordered by the learned Single Judge, w.e.f. 16.03.2021, by giving him benefits, in terms of the Policy dated 28.12.2021 (Annexure P-7), whereby two years contractual service was the requirement.

Learned Additional Advocate General firstly has submitted that if the said Policy is taken into consideration, the regularization has to be with prospective effect from the date of issuance of the regularization Policy, as per Clause-9 and it could not be prior in point of time w.e.f. 16.03.2021 as given by the learned Single Judge.

Secondly, it is argued that the Policy which was applicable to the employees would be of 30.03.2021, which prescribed three years of continuous service, as on 30.09.2021. Since the employee was appointed on 22.09.2018 and the said Policy was also similar and the regularization would be with prospective effect and could be only after 30.09.2021. It is submitted that by virtue of the said order,

the similarly situated persons who were appointed on the same date, i.e., 29.09.2018, would be regularized on different dates and the writ petitioner would steal a march over them. It is pointed out from the order dated 08.07.2024 (Annexure P-11) that six other employees were also appointed as Clerks in the said Department.

For regularization as given to similarly situate persons who were regularized w.e.f. 08.10.2021, as per the stand taken by the State, in Paragraph-6 of the written statement, it is categorically clarified that the benefits of regularization to be granted to the writ petitioner w.e.f. 08.10.2021 would at par with his contemporaries, who were appointed on the same date, i.e., 27.09.2018.

Keeping in view the above, we are of the considered opinion that the petitioner can only be granted the benefit of regularization with effect from the date his contemporaries as such were also granted the benefits w.e.f. 08.10.2021.

The operation of the order of learned Single Judge to the extent that he has held out that the benefit of the leave granted to contractual employee, which is not permissible, shall remain stayed.

Accordingly, present matter requires consideration.

Admit.

(G.S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice

June 17, 2026 (KS)

( Bipin C. Negi ) Judge