Himachal Pradesh High Court
Chaman Lal vs State Of Himachal Pradesh & Ors on 1 January, 2026
Author: Sandeep Sharma
Bench: Sandeep Sharma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CWP No.2573 of 2023
Date of Decision: 01.01.2026
_____________________________________________________________________
.
Chaman Lal .........Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. .......Respondents
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?
For the Petitioners: Ms. Suman Thakur, Advocate.
of
For the respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar,
Additional Advocates General with Mr. Ravi
Chauhan & Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy
Advocates General, for respondents No.1 &
rt 2-State.
Mr. Pankaj Choudhri, Advocate vice Mr.
Vishal Singh Thakur, Advocate, for
respondent No.3.
___________________________________________________________________________
Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)
Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner, who has been working as Visiting Pharmacist in the respondent/ Institute on daily wage basis since 2017, is that respondent/ Institute is deliberately not permitting the petitioner to complete 240 days in each calendar year, despite there being availability of work so that petitioner does not claim regularization in future.
2. Conjoint reading of the pleadings adduced on record by the respective parties reveal that petitioner, who possesses requisite qualification for the post of Pharmacist, is being deployed on daily ::: Downloaded on - 05/01/2026 20:31:49 :::CIS 2 wage basis to take care of injuries suffered by trainees, who participates in various courses. Though it has been claimed on behalf of the petitioner that his services are being used by the .
respondent/Institute throughout the year, but reply filed by the respondent/institute reveals that services of the petitioner are taken only on need basis. As and when, courses are conducted, petitioner is given work of Pharmacist on daily wage basis. Admittedly, petitioner of herein has not been able to produce any appointment letter suggestive of the fact that he was given appointment against the post of rt Pharmacist on daily wage basis for whole year, but certainly there are certain receipts suggestive of the fact that petitioner had been working on seasonal basis.
3. As per reply filed by the respondent/Institute, there is no sanctioned posts of Pharmacist, rather they are deployed on requirement basis, Pharmacists are being engaged on daily wage basis. Ms. Suman Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner, vehemently argued that factum with regard to petitioner's employment against the post of Pharmacist, may be on seasonal basis, clearly reveals that there is requirement of manpower, but yet respondent/Institute with a view to defeat the rightful claim of the petitioner for regularization have denied regular appointment to the petitioner against the post of Pharmacist. She further submitted that ::: Downloaded on - 05/01/2026 20:31:49 :::CIS 3 record, if called for, would clearly reveals that petitioner herein, besides providing medical services to trainees of respective courses, has also been rendering his services in various other training .
programmes organized by the respondent/Institute throughout the year. Ms. Thakur, further submitted that there is ample material available on record to suggest that work of training is available throughout the year in the respondent/Institute, but yet of respondent/Institute with a view to avoid continuity of service of the petitioner has rt been appointing other persons as Pharmacist (Ayurveda) throughout the year. She submitted that by now it is well settled that one set of contractual employees cannot be replaced by another set of contractual employees, as such, the petitioner herein cannot be replaced by another contractual employee
4. To the contrary, Mr. Vishal Singh Thakur, learned counsel for the respondent/Institute, though admitted factum with regard to petitioner's employment as Pharmacist on daily wage basis, but he submitted that appointment of the petitioner is for a very limited period. He submitted that since different Courses are organized during the year, respondent/Institute hires services of the many Pharmacists to provide medical services to the trainees because regular staff is not enough. He also submitted that since there is no sanctioned post of Pharmacist, there is no question of regularization of the petitioner.
::: Downloaded on - 05/01/2026 20:31:49 :::CIS 45. Though it is apparent from the reply filed by the respondent/Institute that there is lot of work in the respondent/Institute, but yet no cogent and convincing material has .
been adduced on record to suggest that there is no requirement of regular Pharmacist. As per reply filed by the respondent/Institute, various training programmes in the disciplines of mountaineering, skiing and rescue operations during disaster are conducted by the of trainees and for that purpose, throughout the year trainings are conducted at Kullu or other parts of the country. Since regular staff rt comprising of two Pharmacists is not sufficient for these activities, as such, respondent/Institute hires the services of the Pharmacist for a limited period. In similar manner, services of the petitioner, who is Pharmacist, is being used throughout the year, but yet his services are not being regularized.
6. Since it is apparent from the pleadings adduced on record by the petitioner that he has been continuously working as Pharmacist in the respondent/Institute for more than eight years, coupled with the fact that he possesses requisite qualification for the post in question and there is ample work in the respondent/Institute, this Court is persuaded to agree with Ms. Suman Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner, that in the event of availability of work, petitioner herein cannot be denied work of Pharmacist and more ::: Downloaded on - 05/01/2026 20:31:49 :::CIS 5 particularly, he cannot be replaced by another set of contractual employee, rather in that situation, he has a preferential right to be given work, may be on daily wage basis. It is quite apparent from the .
reply filed by the respondent/Institute that it hires services of the petitioner as a Pharmacist for a limited period, but thereafter, for ongoing other courses also engages other persons. If it is so, petitioner is right in contending that despite there being availability of work of against the post in question, new person cannot be engaged on daily wage basis. Though this Court, having taken note of pleadings as well rt as documents adduced on record, is not persuaded to agree with Ms. Suman Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner, that petitioner herein is entitled for regularization, but certainly he is entitled to work, may be on intermittent basis subject to availability of work in the respondent/Institute and in no eventuality, he can be replaced by another set of contractual employee.
7. Though at this stage, Mr. Vishal Singh Thakur, learned counsel for the respondent/Institute, attempted to argue that present petition is not maintainable because the relief, as sought for, can only be claimed by the petitioner by filing petition under Industrial Disputes Act, but this Court is not persuaded to agree with Mr. Thakur, for the reason that in the instant case, precise prayer of the petitioner is that despite his having rendered continuous service of ::: Downloaded on - 05/01/2026 20:31:49 :::CIS 6 eight years, his name is not being considered for regularization. Since this Court is not inclined to go into the question of regularization for the reasons detailed hereinabove, coupled with the fact that prayer .
made on behalf of the petitioner has been confined only to the issuance of direction to the respondent/Institute not to replace the petitioner with another set of contractual employees, this Court deems it fit to dispose of the present with a direction to the of respondent/Institute to ensure that as the petitioner is working continuously for eight years, the preferential right to provide medical rt services as a Pharmacist shall be of the petitioner until he is replaced by a regular Pharmacist and in no eventuality, he shall be replaced by another set of Pharmacist. Ordered accordingly. While parting, this Court, having perused reply filed by the respondent/Institute, perusal whereof reveals that there is a lot of work, hopes and trusts that steps for creating regular post of Pharmacist shall also be taken by the respondent/Institute expeditiously, so that no requirement is otherwise left for engaging Pharmacist on intermittent basis.
The present petition is disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application, if any.
January 01, 2026 (Sandeep Sharma),
(sunil) Judge
::: Downloaded on - 05/01/2026 20:31:49 :::CIS