Himachal Pradesh High Court
Reserved On: 22.05.2025 vs State Of Himachal Pradesh & Ors on 12 August, 2025
2025:HHC:27076-DB IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA LPA No.76 of 2015 Reserved on: 22.05.2025 Announced on: 12.08.2025 __________________________________________________________ .
Chain Singh ...Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & ors. ...Respondents
Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge 1Whether approved for reporting? Yes For the appellant:
For the respondents:
to Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, Senior Advocate with Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate, for the appellant.
Mr. Sidharth Jalta, Deputy Advocate General, for the respondents-State.
Ranjan Sharma, Judge Appellant-Chain Singh has come up before this Court in instant Letters Patent Appeal assailing the judgment dated 21.10.2014 (hereinafter referred to as "Impugned Judgment") passed by the Learned Single Judge in CWP No. 1489 of 2010, In re: Chain Singh vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & others, whereby claim of the appellant-writ petitioner for regularization, conferment of work-charge status, and for grant of wages of a Clerk/Gardener, was rejected.1
Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?::: Downloaded on - 12/08/2025 21:27:59 :::CIS
-2- 2025:HHC:27076-DB FACTUAL MATRIX BEFORE THE WRIT COURT
2. In CWP No. 1489 of 2010, appellant-Chain Singh has set up a case that after having undergone .
one year's training as a Gardener, on the basis of communication dated 01.08.1997 (Annexure P-1), the respondents engaged him as a Beldar/Labourer in June 1999. It was further averred that though he was engaged as Beldar/Labourer yet he was made to perform the duties of Clerk/Gardener continuously for 11 years. It is averred that despite his prolonged service he was neither regularized nor granted work-
charge status as Clerk. It was averred that once the appellant-writ petitioner had performed the duties of Clerk, though engaged as Beldar/Labourer, therefore, the respondents were bound to pay him wages of a Clerk. However, he was only paid wages of Beldar /Labourer, for which he submitted a representation on 04.11.2008 (Annexure P-3), on which the Speaker of State Assembly directed Director of Horticulture to examine the matter. In response, Deputy Director, Horticulture Chamba addressed a communication to the Subject Matter Specialist, Pangi on 10.12.2008 ::: Downloaded on - 12/08/2025 21:27:59 :::CIS
-3- 2025:HHC:27076-DB (Annexure P-4) to examine the case and to furnish comments. It was averred that despite these directions the State Authorities neither regularized the services .
of the appellant nor granted work-charge status and have denied wages of Clerk, i.e. the work actually performed by him. It is in this background, the instant writ petition came to be filed seeking the aforesaid reliefs.
2(i).
Director of REPLY BY RESPONDENTS:
State Authorities filed a Reply-Affidavit of Horticulture, Himachal Pradesh, sworn on 08.06.2010. It was stated that the appellant-writ petitioner was engaged in June 1999 for seasonal work at Progeny-cum-Demonstration Orchard (PCDO) at Killar, to perform the work of digging of beds, pits and pruning of fruit plants. During winters when, the field operations could not be undertaken he was asked to work in the office of Subject Matter Specialist (Pangi at Killar), where he was assigned cleaning duties and distribution of Dak. It was further submitted that the work was seasonal in nature and his continuation was subject to the ::: Downloaded on - 12/08/2025 21:27:59 :::CIS
-4- 2025:HHC:27076-DB availability of work and the reply affidavit stated that he continued in service till April 2004.
REJOINDER BY APPELLANT:
.
2(ii). In rejoinder, the appellant reiterated his contentions and also annexed Annexures P-5 and P-6 to assert the services rendered as per the Mandays Chart and that he worked as Clerk from June 1999 till April 2010, though formally engaged as Beldar.
IMPUGNED JUDGMENT DATED 21.10.2014 PASSED BY LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE
3. Learned Single Judge passed the Impugned Judgment on 21.10.2014, whereby, the claim of the appellant-writ petitioner for regularization was negated with the findings that the regularization has to be made against vacancy and that too on the basis of recommendations to be made by Selection Committee for said purpose. Learned Single Judge held that even during the service rendered from June 1999 to April 2004, the aforesaid service was a service with break and was not a continuous service with 160 days during the calendar years 1999, 2003 & 2004 and therefore, the claim for regularization on the basis of interrupted service or service with break(s) ::: Downloaded on - 12/08/2025 21:27:59 :::CIS
-5- 2025:HHC:27076-DB was not tenable. So far as the claim for work charge status is concerned, the Learned Single Judge placed reliance on Mandays Chart [Annexure R-1] and held .
that service from 1999 to 2004 was not a continuous service and he was engaged for seasonal work only, therefore, he could not be granted work charge status.
So far as, the claim for salary as Clerk is concerned the Learned Single Judge negated the claim on the ground, that no evidence existed on record to prove that the appellant-writ petitioner has worked as a Clerk with the respondents. It was further held that appellant-writ petitioner had not placed on record any order issued by Competent Authority, directing him to perform the work of Clerk, in the Department and unless and until an order authorizing him to work as Clerk existed, therefore, in absence of any such order the claim for wages was not tenable.
CHALLENGE TO IMPUGNED JUDGMENT IN INSTANT LPA
4. The appellant-writ petitioner has assailed the impugned judgment dated 21.10.2014, primarily on the grounds that firstly, the pleadings in the writ petition were not duly appreciated by Learned ::: Downloaded on - 12/08/2025 21:27:59 :::CIS
-6- 2025:HHC:27076-DB Single Judge ; and secondly, that the material now placed on record in LPA, [by CMP No.6923 of 2023] including the Dispatch Register [Annexure X] .
and Diary Register [Annexure Y] indicate that he had worked from 2003 to 2009 under Subject Matter Specialist, Horticulture, at Pangi, which supports his claim.
5. Heard, Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, Learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Rajesh Advocate, for the appellant-writ petitioner; as well as r Kumar, Mr. Sidharth Jalta, Learned Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent-State. We have also perused the entire record.
ANALYSIS OF CONTENTIONS OF APPELLANT:
6. First contention advanced by Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant is that the Learned Single Judge, while passing the impugned judgment dated 21.10.2014, Annexure A-1, did not appreciate the pleadings in their true perspective.
Perusal of the Impugned Judgment, indicates that Learned Single Judge has duly considered the pleadings and formulated, points for determination, ::: Downloaded on - 12/08/2025 21:27:59 :::CIS
-7- 2025:HHC:27076-DB
(i) whether appellant-writ petitioner was entitled to regularization ; (ii) whether the appellant-writ petitioner was entitled for work-charge status; and (iii) whether .
appellant-writ petitioner was entitled to wages of a Clerk on the basis of work allegedly performed.
These issues were analyzed and were answered in paragraphs 5 to 7 of the Impugned Judgment, by negating the claim(s) for regularizing and/or for work charge service as a Clerk and the claim for wages as Clerk instead of Beldar. In these circumstances, the contention of Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant being devoid of any merit was turned down, by Learned Single Judge.
CONSIDERATION OF ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS FILED IN LPA:
7. Second contention of Learned Senior Counsel for appellant is that he places reliance on Dispatch Register (Annexure-X) and Diary Register (Annexure-Y), by filing a CMP No. 6923 of 2023 in instant appeal to assert that the appellant had worked as a Clerk from 1999 to 2010, which needs to be taken into account.
The above contention does not warrant ::: Downloaded on - 12/08/2025 21:27:59 :::CIS
-8- 2025:HHC:27076-DB acceptance, for the reason, that in response to CMP No. 6923 of 2023, a Reply-Affidavit dated 05.09.2023 was filed by State Authorities stating that appellant .
was engaged as Beldar in June 1999 and he did not complete 160 days of continuous service during the years 1999, 2003 and 2004 [as is required for tribal area of Pangi at Killar as per the Mandays Chart, Annexure R-1. Pursuant to orders passed by this Court in the instant proceedings, the State Authorities filed another affidavit dated 01.04.2025 stating that one Sh. Bhagat Ram Shandil, Senior Assistant, had performed the work of establishment and had maintained Dispatch and Diary Registers (Annexures X and Y) during the relevant period and the handwriting/signatures in said registers are at variance with original records and even entries in these documents cast serious doubt. Affidavit filed by the Subject Matter Specialist, Horticulture, negates and denies that appellant-writ petitioner had performed the establishment work, including maintenance of Diary and Dispatch work.
DISPUTED DOCUMENTS DISENTITLE APPELLANT FOR RELIEF IN WRIT-INSTANT PROCEEDINGS:
::: Downloaded on - 12/08/2025 21:27:59 :::CIS -9- 2025:HHC:27076-DB
7(i). Reliance placed on the Dispatch Register
(Annexure-X) and the Diary Register (Annexure-Y) to substantiate continuous service from 2003 to 2009 .
does not advance the appellant's case. Authenticity of these documents has been seriously disputed by the State in its reply dated 05.09.2023 to CMP No. 6923 of 2023. Discrepancies have been pointed out in the handwriting and entries therein vis-à-
vis original record. Even affidavit dated 01.04.2025 filed by Subject Matter Specialist, Horticulture asserts that all such entries were made by Sh. Bhagat Ram Shandil Senior Assistant, and not by appellant.
Once the material placed on record in writ file and even in instant proceedings are seriously disputed, which are required to be examined, tested and established by leading oral/documentary evidence, and such material is insufficient and inconclusive to return a definitive finding as to whether appellant had worked as Clerk from June, 1999 till April, 2010 therefore, such a disputed issue cannot be adjudicated in writ/instant proceedings, for which the appropriate forum is the Industrial Tribunal-
::: Downloaded on - 12/08/2025 21:27:59 :::CIS- 10 - 2025:HHC:27076-DB cum- Labour Court constituted under the Industrial Disputes Act.
7(ii). If complex factual disputes arise, the writ .
court ought not to embark upon such adjudication and the petitioner may be relegated to an alternative efficacious remedy, in view of the mandate of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in A.P. Electrical Equipment Corporation vs. Tahsildar & Ors, 2025 SCC OnLine v.
SC 447, in the following terms:-
51. This Court in the case of Gunwant Kaur r Bhatinda Municipality reported in AIR 1970 SC 602 observed as follows:-
"The High Court observed that they will not determine disputed question of fact in a writ petition. But what facts were in dispute and what were admitted could only be determined after an affidavit in reply was filed by the State. The High Court, however, proceeded to dismiss the petition in limine. The High Court is not deprived of its jurisdiction to entertain a petition under Art.226 merely because in considering the petitioner's right to relief questions of fact may fall to be determined. In a petition under Art. 226 the High Court has jurisdiction to try issues both of fact and law. Exercise of jurisdiction is, it is true, discretionary, but the discretion must be exercised on sound judicial principles. When the petition raises questions of fact of a complex nature, which may for their determination require oral ::: Downloaded on - 12/08/2025 21:27:59 :::CIS
- 11 - 2025:HHC:27076-DB evidence to be taken, and on that account the High Court is of the view that the dispute may not appropriately be tried in a writ petition, the High Court may decline to try a petition. Rejection of a petition in .
limine will normally be justified, where the High Court is of the view that the petition is frivolous or because of the nature of the claim made, dispute sought to be agitated, or that the petition against the party against whom relief is claimed is not maintainable or that the dispute raised thereby is such that it would be inappropriate to try it in the writ jurisdiction, or for analogous reasons."
52. In one of the recent pronouncements of this Court in State of U.P. & Anr. v. Ehsan & rAnr. reported in 2023 INSC 906, this Court observed that:-
"28. We are conscious of the law that existence of an alternative remedy is not an absolute bar on exercise of writ jurisdiction. More so, when a writ petition has been entertained, parties have exchanged their pleadings/ affidavits and the matter has remained pending for long. In such a situation there must be a sincere effort to decide the matter on merits and not relegate the writ petitioner to the alternative remedy, unless there are compelling reasons for doing so. One such compelling reason may arise where there is a serious dispute between the parties on a question of fact and materials/ evidence(s) available on record are insufficient/ inconclusive to enable the Court to come to a definite conclusion.
30. No doubt, in a writ proceeding between ::: Downloaded on - 12/08/2025 21:27:59 :::CIS
- 12 - 2025:HHC:27076-DB the State and a landholder, the Court can, on the basis of materials/ evidence(s) placed on record, determine whether possession has been taken or not and while doing so, it may draw adverse inference against the .
State where the statutory mode of taking possession has not been followed State of UP vs. Hari Ram (supra)]. However, where possession is stated to have been taken long ago and there is undue delay on the part of landholder in approaching the writ court, infraction of the prescribed procedure for taking possession would not be a determining factor, inasmuch as, it could be taken that the person for whose benefit the procedure existed had waived his right thereunder. In r such an event, the factum of actual possession would have to be determined on the basis of materials/evidence(s) available on record and not merely by finding fault in the procedure adopted for taking possession from the land holder. And if the writ court finds it difficult to determine such question, either for insufficient/ inconclusive materials/ evidence(s) on record or because oral evidence would also be required to form a definite opinion, it may relegate the writ petitioner to a suit, if the suit is otherwise maintainable."
7(iii). While dealing with claim for regularization, where the factum of 240 days of continuous service was disputed, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ernakulam Regional Co-operative Milk Producers Union Ltd. vs. Nithu & Ors., 2024 SCC OnLine ::: Downloaded on - 12/08/2025 21:27:59 :::CIS
- 13 - 2025:HHC:27076-DB SC 650, had held in following terms:-
"10. At the same time, in ground (A) taken by the respondents in the writ petition they have averred that all of them were in continuous service for a period of over 240 .
days in a period of 12 calendar months and therefore, ought to be treated as permanent workers under the provisions of ID Act. It has also been asserted that the appellant-Society herein is an organization covered under the provisions of the ID Act. Despite that, the respondent did not raise a dispute for it to be referred for adjudication by the State Government. Instead, while the conciliation proceedings were still pending before the District Labour Officer, who has been impleaded as respondent No. 11 herein and the r same did not bear any positive result instead of seeking their remedies under the ID Act, the respondents continued to press the writ petition filed by them.
11. Despite a specific plea taken by the appellant-Society in its counter affidavit filed in response to the writ petition, as pointed out by Mr. C.U. Singh, learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellant-Society, that the writ petitioners were engaged purely on a casual basis and that they were nominated from amongst the members of the Apex Cooperative Society (APCOS) and the terms and conditions of the Circulars issued by the appellant
-Society had made it abundantly clear that the nominees would not have any right of permanent employment, such a plea did not find favour with the High Court. Further, the appellant-Society had specifically averred in its counter affidavit that as none of the writ petitioners had worked for over 200 days in a calendar year, even otherwise, ::: Downloaded on - 12/08/2025 21:27:59 :::CIS
- 14 - 2025:HHC:27076-DB they were not entitled to claim permanent employment.
12. In our opinion, all the aforesaid questions would fall in the realm of disputed questions of fact that would have required evidence to .
be lead and proper assessment and adjudication before an appropriate authority which in the instant case, even as per the respondents - writ petitioners, would have been a remedy available under the ID Act. This aspect seem to have been lost sight of by the learned Single Judge as also the Division Bench. The learned Single Judge appears to have got swayed by the judgement in the case of Umadevi (supra) to hold that the respondents-writ petitioners had put in service for over two decades and were therefore entitled r to be regularized in terms of the directions issued in the said decision, unmindful of the fact that the appellant
-Society had categorically refuted the plea taken by the respondents-writ petitioners that they had put in 240 days of regular service in the past 12 months and instead, had asserted that they failed to satisfy the criteria laid down in Umadevi (supra) for purposes of regularization.
21. In the instant case, the disputed questions of facts go to the very root of the matter inasmuch as the appellant-Society has questioned the plea of the respondents-writ petitioners that they have put in 240 days of continuous service in the previous 12 months and would therefore, be entitled to regularization. This aspect requires evidence and its evaluation before the proper forum."
Based on the above discussion, the appellant
-writ petitioner has failed to establish that he has ::: Downloaded on - 12/08/2025 21:27:59 :::CIS
- 15 - 2025:HHC:27076-DB rendered continuous service of 160 days in each calendar year from June 1999 to April 2004, which is borne out from Mandays Chart [Annexure R-1].
.
The assertion that he had worked from May 2004 to April 2010 on the basis of alleged documents [Annexure X & Annexure Y] is concerned, the State authorities have seriously disputed the veracity of these documents. Despite sincere efforts, this Court r to is of the considered view that these seriously disputed documents, refrain this Court from arriving at a definite conclusion. The factum of appellant having worked as Clerk, for the claimed period, June 1999 to April 2010 can only be conclusively determined by leading oral and documentary evidence, which must be tested, proved, and appreciated by competent forum established under the Industrial Disputes Act and not in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution.
7(iv). In a similar fact-situation, this Court has held that seriously disputed questions of fact, involving nature of employment, the period of service or other related issues on which no definite findings can be ::: Downloaded on - 12/08/2025 21:27:59 :::CIS
- 16 - 2025:HHC:27076-DB recorded in the writ proceedings and such could only be established by oral and documentary evidence before appropriate forum and in such an eventuality, .
the proper course is to relegate the claim before the appropriate forum. Reference may be made to the judgments of this Court in Sunder Lal vs. Municipal Corporation, CWPOA No. 6617 of 2020, decided on 06.11.2024, and Deep Ram vs. Municipal Corporation, Shimla & Anr, CWPOA No. 6609 of 2020, decided on 07.01.2025, wherein, similar claim(s) were negated, for want of proof of continuous service and in view of disputed factual controversies.
7(v). In totality of factual and legal position, the appellant has failed to demonstrate that he has rendered continuous service of 160 days during the years 1999, 2003, and 2004 as per Mandays Chart [Annexure R-1]. This shortfall during the aforesaid three calendar years, itself renders the appellant ineligible for regularization and even for work-charge status. The Diary and Dispatch Registers [Annexures X & Y] cannot come to his aid, particularly, when, veracity-authenticity of handwriting is stated to be ::: Downloaded on - 12/08/2025 21:27:59 :::CIS
- 17 - 2025:HHC:27076-DB at variance with original records and the same is seriously disputed by the State authorities. Such issues can be established, only by leading evidence .
in an appropriate forum. In these circumstances, once the material on record is inconclusive and is seriously disputed by the State Authorities, due to which no definite finding can be adjudicated in writ proceedings, therefore, the contention of the Learned Senior Counsel is turned down.
INELIGIBILITY DISENTITLES APPELLANT FOR REGULARISATION OR WORK CHARGE STATUS:
7(vi). This Court does not find any infirmity in the conclusion arrived at by the Learned Single Judge in rejecting the claim for regularization, in view of the fact that the State Authorities notified a policy on 03.04.2000 for regularization and/or for granting work charge status to the daily wagers upon completion of 8 years of continuous service, who were engaged on or after 1.1.1994 and this policy remained in force till 09.06.2004. Facts in instant appeal, reveal that the appellant was engaged as Beldar/Labourer on daily wage bassis in June 1999 and he claims to have worked as Clerk till April 2010.::: Downloaded on - 12/08/2025 21:27:59 :::CIS
- 18 - 2025:HHC:27076-DB Conversely, a perusal of Mandays Chart (Annexure R-1), show that he had only worked as Beldar/Labourer from 1999 to 2004 and even during this period, he .
did not complete 160 days of continuous service [as is required for the persons serving in tribal area] during the years 1999, 2003 and 2004, having worked only for 46, 122 and 78 days respectively. The appellant had not rendered eight years continuous service in terms of regularization policy of 8 years. Consequently, the appellant being ineligible, due to non-completion of 8 years continuous daily wage service has no legally enforceable right to claim regularization dehors the extant policy, which was validly denied by Learned Single Judge. So far as the claim for work-charge status is concerned, the same must also fail as the appellant did not fulfill the eligibility criteria of eight years continuous service but had worked from 1999 to 2010, and that too with breaks leading to non-
completion of continuous service of 160 days even during the year 1999, 2003 and 2004. The appellant has failed to render 8 years continuous service as daily wager, which is a sine qua non for acquiring eligibility ::: Downloaded on - 12/08/2025 21:27:59 :::CIS
- 19 - 2025:HHC:27076-DB either for being considered for regularization [subject to availability of vacancy] or for conferment of work charge status in terms of the applicable policy dated .
03.04.2000 which remained in force till 09.06.2004.
The right of consideration either for regularization and/or for work charge status accrues only to an eligible daily wager. Such, a right neither be claimed nor granted to an ineligible incumbent, alike appellant
-writ petitioner, who has rendered of daily wage service [1999 to 2004 as per Mandays r about 6 years Annexure R-1] and moreover, such service was not a continuous service, for want of completion of 160 days of daily waged service in each calendar year. The appellant-writ petitioner, being ineligible, can neither claim nor be granted work charge service dehors the policy dated 3.4.2000, which remained in force till 9.6.2004. Recently, while dealing with the claim as daily wagers for conferment of work charge status, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in, State of Himachal Pradesh versus Surajmani & Anr., Civil Appeal No.1595 of 2025, decided on 06.02.2025, conferred eligibility for conferment/grant of work ::: Downloaded on - 12/08/2025 21:27:59 :::CIS
- 20 - 2025:HHC:27076-DB charge status on daily wagers who have completed 8 years of continuous service and since the appellant
-writ petitioner does not fulfill the aforesaid continuous .
daily wage service, hence, his claim for work charge status was validly rejected by the Learned Single Judge.
8. Third contention of Learned Senior Counsel, that though the appellant was engaged as a Beldar/ Labourer and in fact had discharged Clerk therefore, he entitled to the salary of a Clerk.
r duties of The above contention is devoid of any merit, as, the State Authorities have specifically denied that the appellant had worked as Clerk; but the Reply Affidavit asserts that the appellant-writ petitioner had in fact worked as Beldar/labourer. No material or order of competent authority has been placed on record, to substantiate the claim of having worked as Clerk. Even, the veracity of the Diary and Dispatch Registers [Annexure X and Annexure Y, now annexed in LPA], is seriously disputed, being at variance with the original records. Unless and until, the authenticity and execution of such documents are examined, ::: Downloaded on - 12/08/2025 21:27:59 :::CIS
- 21 - 2025:HHC:27076-DB tested and proved by way of evidence before the appropriate forum, in appropriate proceedings and therefore, this Court in unable to arrive at a conclusive .
and definite findings in instant proceedings.
8(i). A perusal of writ records as well as the LPA, reveals that the appellant-writ petitioner has not placed on record any material to establish that he was ever appointed or engaged as a Clerk.
r work as to No order issued by competent authority authorizing him Clerk has been produced. This Court takes judicial notice of the fact that the post of Clerk, as per the extant norms/rules, is to be filled up either by direct recruitment or by promotion from eligible Class-IV employees, after due selection as prescribed therein. The claim of the appellant for treating him as a Clerk, dehors the Recruitment and Promotion Rules is not tenable.
Even, the plea for grant of wages of a Clerk is not tenable, in the absence of any conclusive, definite and undisputed evidence, so as to enable this Court to arrive at a conclusive and definite finding on the claim that the appellant had performed ::: Downloaded on - 12/08/2025 21:27:59 :::CIS
- 22 - 2025:HHC:27076-DB the functions of Clerk from June 1999 till April 2010. Even, as per the Office Manual issued by the Government of Himachal Pradesh, Department of .
Personnel (Administrative Reforms); the post of Clerk involves multifarious duties, i.e. Clerks posted in different sections have to perform duties and functions as assigned to them by Section Officer/Superintendent.
In small offices, they have to perform all the duties as required according to the needs of those offices, including Receipt and miscellaneous work in Section, Type Section/Comparison Section, Record Section, Control Room/Emergency Services, Dispatch Section and further they have also to maintain such records, registers, returns etc. as are specifically required by the section. For instance, when posted in Accounts and Cash Sections, they have to prepare all types of bills, maintain Cash Book, Bills Register etc., and in Store Section maintain all records relating to stores, etc. At the same time, the Clerks have to help the Assistants of the section in preparing and maintaining proper records and submission of cases, besides performing such other official duties as are specifically ::: Downloaded on - 12/08/2025 21:27:59 :::CIS
- 23 - 2025:HHC:27076-DB assigned by Section Officer/ Superintendent or Branch Officer." Nothing has been placed on record, even before this Court, to demonstrate that the appellant had .
in fact discharged all or majority of such multifarious functions, which are required to be performed by Clerks. In these circumstances, the claim of the appellant for wages of Clerk, in view of the disputed factual matrix and absence of the proof of having performed the work of Clerk, as required by norms, including Office Manual cannot be accepted in these proceedings.
8(ii). Perusal of writ records reveals, that the appellant-writ petitioner has not placed on record any representation submitted to State Authorities for asserting a claim for having worked as Clerk, from June 1999 till April 2010, as is now being sought for in writ petition and in LPA. In absence of any such representation or supporting material, said claim cannot be examined in these proceedings.
Moreover, the inaction, negligence and slackness on the part of the appellant, is sufficient to negate the claim for wages of a Clerk also.
::: Downloaded on - 12/08/2025 21:27:59 :::CIS - 24 - 2025:HHC:27076-DB
CONCLUSION"
9. Ineligibility of the appellant, for want of 8 years of continuous service [with 160 days in .
each calendar years for tribal area] on daily wage basis, disentitles him for being considered for regularization and/or even for work charge status.
Claim for appointing him as Clerk dehors the Recruitment and Promotion Rules cannot be permitted.
Even claim for wages as a Clerk cannot sustain, in the absence of any conclusive or sufficient material on record, on the basis of which, this Court can arrive at a definite conclusion and when, such a claim is required to be proved by oral and documentary evidence before appropriate forum. In absence of sufficient, conclusive and undisputed material, the claim of the appellant-writ petitioner for regularization or work charge status as Clerk or wages as Clerk was rightly rejected by the Learned Single Judge.
Ineligibility of the appellant for want of completion of 8 years continuous daily wage service disentitles him for being considered for regularization or for work charge status. Even inconclusive and indefinite ::: Downloaded on - 12/08/2025 21:27:59 :::CIS
- 25 - 2025:HHC:27076-DB material and seriously disputed facts refrain this Court from adjudicating the claim for regularization/ work charge status or even for wages as Clerk. Such .
a plea is liable to be tested, examined and proved by oral and documentary evidence before appropriate forum constituted under the Industrial Disputes Act which was not done and even disputed facts herein, cannot be adjudicated in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and even in present Intra-Court Appeal. Accordingly, Impugned Judgment dated 21.10.2014 passed by Learned Single Judge does not suffer from any perversity or infirmity or illegality and same is accordingly, upheld.
10. No other point was urged/raised.
DIRECTIONS
11. In view of the above discussion and for the reasons recorded hereinabove, the instant appeal is dismissed, in the following terms:-
(i). Instant appeal, LPA No. 76 of 2015, is dismissed;
(ii). Impugned Judgment in CWP No. 1489 of 2010, Chain Singh vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & others , decided on 21.10.2014 passed by the Learned Single Judge ::: Downloaded on - 12/08/2025 21:27:59 :::CIS
- 26 - 2025:HHC:27076-DB is upheld;
(iii). Parties to bear their respective costs.
In aforesaid terms, the instant appeal .
and all pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of, accordingly.
(G.S. Sandhawalia) (Ranjan Sharma)
Chief Justice Judge
August 12, 2025
[tm/shivender]
r to
::: Downloaded on - 12/08/2025 21:27:59 :::CIS