State of Hp and Anr. Vs Meera Devi

¶1

( 2026:HHC:21800 )

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶3

LPA No.24 of 2026 Date of Decision:- 03.06.2026

¶4

State of Himachal Pradesh and another ....Appellants Versus Meera Devi ....Respondent

¶5

Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge.

¶6

Whether approved for reporting?¹ For the Appellants : Mr. Pranay Pratap Singh, Additional Advocate General.

¶7

G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice (Oral)

¶8

The present appeal is directed against the order dated 20.08.2025, passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP No.8749 of 2022, titled as Meera Devi Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and another, whereby the direction was given to the respondents for converting the services of the petitioneremployee from part time to daily wage from the date she completed eight years service from the date of her initial appointment in the year 2013 in terms of policy of 2015 framed by the Government of Himachal Pradesh for conversion of part

¶9

time worker to daily wage basis and thereafter, consequential

¶10

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

¶11

2

¶12

benefits, if any, were also ordered to be paid to the petitioneremployee expeditiously.

¶13

2. Counsel for the appellants-State has submitted in view of the fact that the State had taken a decision on 21.07.2011 (Annexure R-I) to fill up the post of Sweepers by outsourcing and to declare the cadre of the post as dying cadre in all the Government Department(s), the appointment of the petitioner made in the year 2013 was bad and there was nothing on record to show that the actual appointment was made and directions as such could not be made against the policy in question.

¶14

3. The learned Single Judge while examining the issue threadbare, came to the conclusion that the communications were sent by the office of the District Attorney, Kinnaur at Rampur to the Director of Prosecution, Himachal Pradesh, Shimla for regularization as well as conversion of service of the petitioner-employee from part time to daily wage. The petitioneremployee was working since January, 2013 as contingent paid worker in the office of the District Attorney, Kinnaur at Rampur as Safai Karamchari and a sum of Rs.2,85,849/- as such was paid to the petitioner-employee as salary, but thereafter her services

¶15

3

¶16

were discontinued on the basis of the objection raised by the Treasury Office, Rampur.

¶17

4. However, by various interim orders which were reproduced in the judgment by the learned Single, the service was accordingly protected while issuing contempt notice to the Officers and noticing that the wages were being paid from the contingency funds by the office of the District Attorney, Kinnaur at Rampur and directions were issued to the respondents to ensure that the wages are released by the Treasury concerned.

¶18

5 . It is also to be noticed that the petitioner-employee had applied in the year 2011 for employment and her prayer for appointment was accepted in the year 2013 and since then, she had been continously working in the same office and apparently, the writ petition had then been filed by the petitioner-employee in the year 2022. The prayer in the writ petition was also for regularization of the services of the petitioner-employee w.e.f. January, 2017 on the post of the Safai Karamchari for the grant of all consequential benefits.

¶19

6. Resultantly, a finding was recorded that if there was a violation of the instructions but as she had continued for all these long years, no steps were taken to remove her and since she had already completed eight years of service and thus was

¶20

4

¶21

held entitled to the benefit of conversion from part-time to daily wage basis.

¶22

7. The documents which have been placed on record by the appellants-State would also go on to show that it is apparent that on 20.01.2020 (Annexure R-10), the Deputy District Attorney Kinnaur at Rampur had written a letter to the Director of Prosecution, Himachal Pradesh, Shimla, wherein it has been mentioned that the work of the office was suffering very badly as the dust and waste papers were scattered everywhere and even outside the office. The sweeping work was being taken from sweepers by giving the remuneration/labour charges per month, but they left the work one by one after each other but thereafter the work of the sweeper was taken from petitioneremployee since January, 2013 to till date and she was found expert/efficient in her work of sweeping and cleanliness and thus ex-post facto permission for engaging her as part time sweeper was sought from January, 2013.

¶23

8. It was also apparent that the Director of Prosecution, Himachal Pradesh had written to the Private Secretary to the Chief Parliamentary Secretary (Health) Himachal Pradesh, Shimla on 24.09.2013 (Annexure R-3) that as per Government Policy there was no provision for the appointment as daily wager

¶24

5

¶25

sweeper directly regarding the subject of the daily wager Sweeper at District Attorney Office Kinnaur at Rampur Bushahar, District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh and, therefore, the request of the petitioner-employee, could not be considered.

¶26

9. It is thus apparent that the petitioner-employee was continuing in service as alleged since 2013 and even if there was no issuance of appointment order but there is an admission as such from the authorities as per the aforesaid communications regarding her appointment therefore it does not lie in the mouth of the State to deny the relief as such apparently on the basis of the Policy itself of the State Government dated 27.05.2015.

¶27

10. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the writ Court as such was activating and protecting the poor Class-IV employee for grant of the benefits as per the State Government’s policy.

¶28

11. It was in such circumstances that even the ex-post facto sanction was sought by the concerned authority and no action was taken and the poor Class-IV employee was forced to approach this Court and consequently, the necessary directions were issued.

¶29

12. Keeping in view the above, we are of the considered opinion that no grounds as such are made out to interfere in the

¶30

6

¶31

well-reasoned order dated 20.08.2025, passed by the learned

¶32

Single Judge.

¶33

13. Resultantly, the present appeal also stands

¶34

dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.