Himachal Pradesh High Court
Nitin Thakur vs State Of Himachal Pradesh And Ors on 23 September, 2025
Author: Sandeep Sharma
Bench: Sandeep Sharma
2025:HHC:33209
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CWP No.4971 of 2024 a/w CWP Nos. 1327, 1672, 1718,
2042, 2571, 3779, 4257, 4263, 4264, 4265, 4312,
.
4485, 4846, 4869, 4904, 4931, 4968 to 4970, 4972,
4973, 5084, 5088, 5271, 5340, 5352, 5409, 5500,
5511, 5526, 5530, 5591, 5650, 5770, 5862, 5961,
5962, 11785, 11839, 11862, 11921, 12094, 12177,
12179, 12200, 12203, 12216, 12234, 12439, 12248,
12263, 12264, 12271, 12296, 12302, 12556, 12562,
13110, 13362, 13379, 14510, 14511, 15300, 15304,
15308 of 2024 and CWP No. 67, 2782 and 4133 of
2025
Reserved on 20.8.2025
Date of Decision: 23.9.2025
_____________________________________________________________________
1. CWP No.4971 of 2024
Nitin Thakur
r .........Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors.
.......Respondents
2. CWP No.1327 of 2024
Ishaant Bhardwaj
.........Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors.
.......Respondents
3. CWP No.1672 of 2024
Neel Kamal Sharma and Ors.
.........Petitioners
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors.
.......Respondents
4. CWP No.1718 of 2024
Vishal Bushahri
.........Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors.
.......Respondents
5. CWP No.2042 of 2024
Suman
.........Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors.
::: Downloaded on - 23/09/2025 21:28:14 :::CIS
-2- 2025:HHC:33209
.......Respondents
6. CWP No.2571 of 2024
Pratibha Verma
.
.........Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors.
.......Respondents
7. CWP No.3779 of 2024
Hitesh Sharma
.........Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors.
.......Respondents
8. CWP No.4257 of 2024
Naveen Nishchal
.........Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors.
.......Respondents
9. CWP No.4263 of 2024
Vinay Thakur
.........Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors.
.......Respondents
10. CWP No.4264 of 2024
Naveen Sharma
.........Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors.
.......Respondents
11. CWP No.4265 of 2024
Gulzari Lal
.........Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors.
.......Respondents
12. CWP No.4312 of 2024
Navdeepak Thakur and Ors.
.........Petitioners
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors.
.......Respondents
13. CWP No.4485 of 2024
Puneet Thakur and Ors.
::: Downloaded on - 23/09/2025 21:28:14 :::CIS
-3- 2025:HHC:33209
.........Petitioners
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors.
.
.......Respondents
14. CWP No.4846 of 2024
Ankush Saklani and Ors.
.........Petitioners
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors.
.......Respondents
15. CWP No.4869 of 2024
Anil Kumar and Anr.
.........Petitioners
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors.
.......Respondents
16. CWP No.4904 of 2024
Rohit Rathore
.........Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors.
.......Respondents
17. CWP No.4931 of 2024
Mohit Sharma
.........Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors.
.......Respondents
18. CWP No.4968 of 2024
Sandeep and Anr.
.........Petitioners
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors.
.......Respondents
19. CWP No.4969 of 2024
Arun Kumar and Ors.
.........Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors.
.......Respondents
20. CWP No.4970 of 2024
Kanav Dogra
.........Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors.
::: Downloaded on - 23/09/2025 21:28:14 :::CIS
-4- 2025:HHC:33209
.......Respondents
21. CWP No.4972 of 2024
Chirag Chadha
.
.........Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors.
.......Respondents
22. CWP No.4973 of 2024
Rajneesh Kumar
.........Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors.
.......Respondents
23. CWP No.5084of 2024
Ankush Gupta
.........Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors.
.......Respondents
24. CWP No.5088 of 2024
Jitender Singh
.........Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors.
.......Respondents
25. CWP No.5271 of 2024
Vijay Kumar
.........Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors.
.......Respondents
26. CWP No.5340of 2024
Rahul Kumar
.........Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors.
.......Respondents
27. CWP No.5352 of 2024
Shubham Sood
.........Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors.
.......Respondents
28. CWP No.5409of 2024
Narinder Singh
::: Downloaded on - 23/09/2025 21:28:14 :::CIS
-5- 2025:HHC:33209
.........Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors.
.
.......Respondents
29. CWP No.5500 of 2024
Jitender Kumar
.........Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors.
.......Respondents
30. CWP No.5511 of 2024
Sahil Cheeda and Ors.
.........Petitioners
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors.
.......Respondents
31. CWP No.5526 of 2024
Rameshwar Singh
.........Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors.
.......Respondents
32. CWP No.5530 of 2024
Reenu Chauhan
.........Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors.
.......Respondents
33. CWP No.5591 of 2024
Nisha Kumari and Anr.
.........Petitioners
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors.
.......Respondents
34. CWP No.5650 of 2024
Pawan Kumar
.........Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors.
.......Respondents
35. CWP No.5770 of 2024
Ved Prakash
.........Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors.
::: Downloaded on - 23/09/2025 21:28:14 :::CIS
-6- 2025:HHC:33209
.......Respondents
36. CWP No.5862 of 2024
Chandesh Rathore
.
.........Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors.
.......Respondents
37. CWP No.5961 of 2024
Dharni Sharma
.........Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors.
.......Respondents
38. CWP No.5962 of 2024
Om Prakash
.........Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors.
.......Respondents
39. CWP No.11785of 2024
Shalini
.........Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors.
.......Respondents
40. CWP No.11839 of 2024
Rohit Kumar and Ors.
.........Petitioners
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors.
.......Respondents
41. CWP No.11862 of 2024
Arun Thakur
.........Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors.
.......Respondents
42. CWP No.11921 of 2024
Varun Sharma and Ors.
.........Petitioners
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors.
.......Respondents
43. CWP No.12094 of 2024
Bhuvan Bhardwaj and Ors.
::: Downloaded on - 23/09/2025 21:28:14 :::CIS
-7- 2025:HHC:33209
.........Petitioners
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors.
.
.......Respondents
44. CWP No.12177 of 2024
Harpreet Singh
.........Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors.
.......Respondents
45. CWP No.12179of 2024
Rakesh Kumar
.........Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors.
.......Respondents
46. CWP No.12200 of 2024
Ajay Singh and Ors.
.........Petitioners
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors.
.......Respondents
47. CWP No.12203 of 2024
Neha Dhinman
.........Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors.
.......Respondents
48. CWP No.12216 of 2024
Vikas Guleria and Ors.
.........Petitioners
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors.
.......Respondents
49. CWP No.12234 of 2024
Ishan Agrawal
.........Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors.
.......Respondents
50. CWP No.12248 of 2024
Vivek Surya
.........Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors.
::: Downloaded on - 23/09/2025 21:28:14 :::CIS
-8- 2025:HHC:33209
.......Respondents
51. CWP No.12263 of 2024
Raman Kumar
.
.........Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors.
.......Respondents
52. CWP No.12264 of 2024
Abhishek
.........Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors.
.......Respondents
53. CWP No.12271 of 2024
Preeti Chauhan
.........Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors.
.......Respondents
54. CWP No.12296 of 2024
Ashwani Kumar
.........Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors.
.......Respondents
55. CWP No.12302 of 2024
Sahil Thakur and Ors.
.........Petitioners
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors.
.......Respondents
56. CWP No.12439 of 2024
Ankush Kaushal and Anr.
.........Petitioners
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors.
.......Respondents
57. CWP No.12556 of 2024
Paritosh Chauhan
.........Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors.
.......Respondents
58. CWP No.12562 of 2024
Rajat Mahajan
::: Downloaded on - 23/09/2025 21:28:14 :::CIS
-9- 2025:HHC:33209
.........Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors.
.
.......Respondents
59. CWP No.13110 of 2024
Chaahat Thakur
.........Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors.
.......Respondents
60. CWP No.13362 of 2024
Shailja Kumari and Anr.
.........Petitioners
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors.
.......Respondents
61. CWP No.13379 of 2024
Vinit Kumar
.........Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors.
.......Respondents
62. CWP No.14510 of 2024
Rajesh
.........Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors.
.......Respondents
63. CWP No.14511 of 2024
Vishal Kumar
.........Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors.
.......Respondents
64. CWP No.15300 of 2024
Dinesh Thakur
.........Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors.
.......Respondents
65. CWP No. 15304 of 2024
Kalpana Thakur and Ors.
.........Petitioners
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors.
::: Downloaded on - 23/09/2025 21:28:14 :::CIS
- 10 - 2025:HHC:33209
.......Respondents
66. CWP No.15308 of 2024
Anshu Bhardwaj and Ors.
.
.........Petitioners
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors.
.......Respondents
67. CWP No.67 of 2025
Kapil Kalsi and Anr.
.........Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors.
.......Respondents
68. CWP No.2782 of 2025
Mukul Verma and Anr.
.........Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors.
.......Respondents
69. CWP No.4133 of 2025
Rishu Puri
.........Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors.
.......Respondents
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting? Yes.
For the Petitioners: Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, Mr. Sunil Mohan Goel
& Mr. Lovneesh Kanwar, Senior Advocates
with Mr. C.N.Singh, Dr. Nidhi Singh, Mr.
Devender K. Sharma, Anshul Gandhi, Mr.
Ramesh Chand, Mr. Rakesh Chauhan, Mr.
Daleep Chand, Mr. Dhiraj Thakur, Ms.
Priyanka Chandel, Mr. Rocky, Mr. Ashwani
Kumar Sharma, Mr. Nitin Rishi, Mr. Rajesh
Kumar, Mr. Tek Chand, Mr. Arun Kaushal,
Mr. Nimish Gupta and Mr. Mohar Singh,
Advocates, for the petitioner(s), in the
respective petitions
For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, Mr.
Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar & Mr. B.C.
Verma, Additional Advocates General, with
Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General,
for the respondents-State.
::: Downloaded on - 23/09/2025 21:28:14 :::CIS
- 11 - 2025:HHC:33209
Mr. Naveen Kumar Pathania, Advocate, for the
respondent-HPHDP, in the respective
petitions.
.
Mr. Balram Sharma, Deputy Solicitor General
of India with Mr. Kunal Thakur, CGC, for the
respondent-Union of India, in all the petitions.
___________________________________________________________________________
Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)
Since common question of facts and law are involved in the above captioned cases and petitioners therein are aggrieved of inaction on the part of the respondents to regularize them from the date they have completed two years service on contract basis, this court after having clubbed all the cases, heard them together and now with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, same are being disposed of vide common judgment.
2. Petitioners herein, who were offered appointment on contract basis on different posts i.e. Assistant Engineer, Jr. Engineer (Civil Electrical/ Mechanical Instrumentation, Draftsman, Facilitator, Surveyors, Technical Facilitator, Procumbent Officer, Programmer MA Procurement, MA Accounts, Farm Manager, Assistant Farm Manager.
Office Assistant( Management/IT) either by Project Manager, Himachal Pradesh Horticulture Development Society (HPHDS) or by Director of Horticulture, on different pay scales etc., have been denied the benefit of regularization in terms of policy of regularization framed by the Government of Himachal Pradesh on the pretext that they are not employees of the respondent-State, but of Societies, as named herein above.
::: Downloaded on - 23/09/2025 21:28:14 :::CIS- 12 - 2025:HHC:33209
3. After being appointed on contract basis by agencies detailed herein above i.e. Himachal Pradesh Horticulture Development .
Society and by Director of Horticulture, Himachal Pradesh, petitioners herein, who have been performing work in the Directorate of Horticulture, Himachal Pradesh as well as in HPMC, Himachal Pradesh Agriculture Marketing Board, State Horticulture Universities and Nursery Management Societies etc., have filed afore petitions seeking therein direction to the respondents to regularize their contractual services r in the Directorate of Horticulture after completion of two years of contractual service in terms of policy of regularization framed by the respondent-State (Annexures P-7 and P-
8) with all consequential benefits.
4. Though facts of all these petitions are very much common but for the sake of clarity and for taking note of documents adduced on record at the behest of the petitioners, this Court, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, shall be referring to the facts of lead case i.e. CWP No. 4971 of 2024, titled as "Nitin Thakur v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors."
5. For completion of facts, it may be noted that petitioner Nitin Thakur had approached the Hon'ble Court by way of filing CWP No. 4971 of 2024 in May, 2024, which was listed on 31.5.2024, on which this Court passed following order: "In the meantime, the respondents shall maintain status quo qua the services of the ::: Downloaded on - 23/09/2025 21:28:14 :::CIS
- 13 - 2025:HHC:33209 petitioner/applicant." Thereafter, the interim order remained in force, on account of which the petitioner Nitin Thakur, continued in service .
with the respondent Society. Such order was passed in each of the petitions, and as on date, all the petitioners are still continuing in service with the respondent Society. Thereafter, some contempt petitions were also filed in some of the petitions on account of the fact that the petitioners were not being paid their remuneration and while filing reply to the contempt petitions, respondents admitted that the petitioners are still continuing in job and their services have not been dispensed with. The contempt petitions were later on disposed of on account of the fact that the matter was being finally heard and the respondents were directed to abide by the final outcome of the writ petitions
6. Respondent-State formed a Society named Himachal Pradesh Horticulture Development Society ( in short the society) i.e. respondent No.4, under the Himachal Pradesh Societies Registration Act, 2006 as is evident from Registration certificate placed on record (Annexure P-2). With a view to achieve aims and object of Society, number of posts of different nature including the posts of Junior Engineer (Civil) came to be advertised on 4.6.2018 by the respondents (Annexure P-3). Pursuant to afore, petitioner-Nitin Thakur also applied and he was called for interview. Selection Committee after having found the petitioner eligible for appointment against the post in ::: Downloaded on - 23/09/2025 21:28:14 :::CIS
- 14 - 2025:HHC:33209 question, selected him vide order dated 16.11.2019 (Annexure P-4), pursuant to which he gave his joining on 11.11.2019 (Annexure P-5).
.
7. Pursuant to afore appointment letter, contract agreement came to be executed inter-se parties i.e. petitioner and respondent-
State, which came to be renewed from time to time. On the strength of appointment given on contract basis as detailed herein above petitioner is still working with the respondents (Annexure P-6 and P-
9). It is the case of the petitioners that Government of Himachal Pradesh framed policy for regularizing the services of the contractual employees working in the various departments of the State including the Horticulture department and as such, petitioner Nitin Thakur as well as other similarly situate persons i.e. petitioners in other writ petitions, who also came to be appointed on contract basis against different posts i.e. Assistant Engineer, Jr. Engineer (Civil Electrical/ Mechanical Instrumentation, Draftsman, Facilitator, Surveyors, Technical Facilitator, Procumbent Officer, Programmer MA Procurement, MA Accounts, Farm Manager, Assistant Farm Manager.
Office Assistant( Management/IT) pursuant to advertisement issued by the respondents, ought to have been regularized from the date, they had completed two years service on contract basis as was done in the cases of other contractual employees appointed by the State of Himachal Pradesh in Horticulture Department as well as other departments of Government of Himachal Pradesh.
::: Downloaded on - 23/09/2025 21:28:14 :::CIS- 15 - 2025:HHC:33209
8. Petitioners have further claimed that though some of them were given appointment by the society and some by the department .
itself, but since they all have been performing and discharging various functions/duties of department of Horticulture coupled with the fact that society is owned and controlled by officials of the respondent-
State, they are also required to be regularized from the date they have completed two years service from the date of their initial engagment in terms of policy of regularization framed by Government of Himachal Pradesh in 2007, 2008 and 2009.
9. To substantiate aforesaid claim, petitioners have specifically averred in their respective petitions that issue with regard to reemployment as well as termination of employees of the Indo-
German-Changer Project and IWDP (Hills) Kandi Area, came up for consideration before the Government and in all the cases, it was decided that all the employees will be adjusted in the various departments (Annexure P-10).
10. Besides above, petitioners have further averred that in similar situation, similarly created Government societies (namely Himachal Pradesh Natural Resources Management Society (HPNRMS) under Forest department-Sarv Shiksha Abhiyan Himachal Pradesh School Education Society under Education department, E-governance Societies under Department of Revenue, Integrated Watershed Development Project (IWDP) under Forest Department, H.P. Pollution ::: Downloaded on - 23/09/2025 21:28:14 :::CIS
- 16 - 2025:HHC:33209 Control Board, Himachal Pradesh Power Corporation, H.P. Zoo Conservation Society under Forest department, H.P. Red Cross .
Society, Himurja, Rogi Kalyan Samiti, District Rural Agency (DRDA), HP MHWD, engaged number of persons , who were initially engaged on temporary, contract basis but were subsequently adjusted/ transferred to its successor undertaking against vacant posts in the establishment along with seniority and other benefits and some of the employees were adjusted in other departments including forest department of Government of Himachal Pradesh and they were regularized in terms of regularization policy framed by the Government of Himachal Pradesh (Annexures P-11 (Colly.) and P-19).
11. It has been also submitted at the behest of the petitioners that issue with regard to termination of project/society, employees in the Indo-German-Changer Project came to be adjudicated by the learned Labour-cum-Industrial Tribunal, Dharamshala and liability to satisfy the award was fastened on the executive department i.e. Forest Department, for all intents and purposes (Annexure P-12). Though aforesaid award was assailed by the department by way of CWPOA No. 2511 of 2099, titled State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. v. Bishan Dass and Ors., but same was dismissed. Since aforesaid judgment passed by this Court was further upheld by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the SLP filed by the respondent-State (Annexures P-13 and P-14), employees working in the aforesaid Indo-German-Changer Project ::: Downloaded on - 23/09/2025 21:28:14 :::CIS
- 17 - 2025:HHC:33209 were ultimately regularized. Besides above, number of judgments delivered by this Court with regard to employees engaged through .
Societies have been also referred by the petitioners to substantiate their claims that for all intents and purposes, employees given appointment on contract basis in the societies are employees of respondent-State and as such, their services need to be regularized in terms of policy of regularization circulated from time to time by the Government of Himachal Pradesh. Though for redressal of their grievance, petitioners, at the first instance, approached the authorities through various representations but since needful never came to be done they approached this court in the instant proceedings, praying therein for following common reliefs:
(Reliefs of CWP No. 4971 of 2024) "i) Issue a writ of Mandamus or other appropriate writ order or direction directing the Respondents to Regularize the contractual services of the Petitioner on the post of Junior Engineer (Civil) in the Department of Horticulture (i.e. Respondent no.1 to 3) after completion of Two years of contractual service i.e. w.e.f. 18.11.2021 in terms of Regularization policy with all consequential benefits.
ii) Issue a writ of Mandamus or other appropriate writ order or direction directing the respondents to pay regular service benefits & accordingly re-fix the pay of the Petitioner and pay the entire consequential benefits in favour of the Petitioner with in time bound manner along with 12% Interest.
iii) Or in Alternative Issue a writ of Mandamus or other appropriate writ order or direction, by directing the respondents to pay the equal pay and perks to Petitioner from ::: Downloaded on - 23/09/2025 21:28:14 :::CIS
- 18 - 2025:HHC:33209 the initial date of her appointment Or after completion of Two years of contractual service as paid to regular employees of the .
government department in terms of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court of India with all consequential benefits."
12. Pursuant to notices issued in the instant proceedings, respondents No.1 to 3 and 4 have filed reply, taking therein plea that petitioners are not the employees of the Horticulture Department, rather they are employees of the Society, which is an autonomous body and as such, cannot claim benefit of policy of regularization framed by Government of Himachal Pradesh. It is further averred in the replies filed by the afore respondents that petitioners were temporarily engaged in the society for a specific work and once work of society is over, petitioners herein cannot claim regularization in term of policy of regularization, which is not applicable in the case of the petitioners, rather same is only applicable to the employees, who were recruited through Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission or Erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Subordinate Staff Selection Board. It is also averred in the reply filed by the respondents that services of the petitioners are co-terminus with the project (paras 3, 5 and 6 of the preliminary submissions)
13. Respondent No.4 in its reply has taken a stand that it is an autonomous body (Society), which is running its business and day-
to-day affairs on the basis of grant given by the Central Government as well as by the State Government to implement the project plan.
::: Downloaded on - 23/09/2025 21:28:14 :::CIS- 19 - 2025:HHC:33209 While admitting that petitioners were engaged in the society owned and controlled by the State of Himachal Pradesh, it is averred at the .
behest of the respondents that engagement of the petitioners does not constitute regular service under the State and therefore, they have no enforceable right to regularization/ absorption in the regular cadre.
14. By way of filing rejoinder to afore replies filed by the respondents, petitioners have placed on record additional material to substantiate their claim. They have placed on record copy of project agreement dated r 21.6.2016, executed between International Development Association and State of Himachal Pradesh for a period of twenty years i.e. w.e.f. 21.6.2016 to 21.6.2036, to state that day-to-
day affairs of the Horticulture Development Project and Society are being managed by officials of the Horticulture Department, which itself suggests that entire work being done in the name of the society is the work of Government of Himachal Pradesh, Horticulture Department and its sister Units i.e. HPMC, H.P. Agriculture Marketing Board as well as State Horticulture Universities in the State ( Plantation, development of nursery, improvement of Horticulture as well as Civil infrastructure, irrigation facilities). In rejoinder, it has been further averred at the behest of the petitioners that to deny benefit of its various policies i.e. regularization, regular service, scales etc. to the petitioners and alike, respondents have indulged in fraud, unfairness, exploitation, discrimination and artificial distinction has been created ::: Downloaded on - 23/09/2025 21:28:14 :::CIS
- 20 - 2025:HHC:33209 by the respondent-State among its employees by creating Societies and as such, lifting of veil of the Society is necessary in order to see .
the fraud, improper conduct of the Respondent State and to remove the imaginary/artificial distinction/barrier created between the State, Horticulture department and the HPHDP, which is a government created /formed /controlled/run Society.
15. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case.
16. From the r careful perusal of pleadings as well as submissions made by the respective counsel for the parties , which shall be taken note of in the later part of the judgment, following issues arise for determination in the cases at hand:
"a. Whether "The Himachal Pradesh Horticulture Development Society (i.e. Respondent No.4), is autonomous body or is being controlled and managed by the Department of Horticulture, Government of Himachal Pradesh ?
b. Whether Society has been purposely created to perform day to day management & monitoring of the work of the Department of Horticulture though its projects etc.?
c. Whether Petitioners /Employees engaged on contract basis on various posts, as detailed in earlier part of the judgment, are serving the Department of Horticulture or Sister concerns- HPMC, HPAMB, Himachal Pradesh Nauni, University or they are performing the work of the Society. d. Whether Himachal Pradesh Horticulture Department has purposely created society with a view to prevent employees working in the society from demanding regular pay-scales as ::: Downloaded on - 23/09/2025 21:28:14 :::CIS
- 21 - 2025:HHC:33209 well as regularization. If yes, whether such act of the department can be said to be creation of corporate veil?
.
e. Whether Employees, who though claim to have been engaged through society, but are working in various limbs of Horticulture Department, can seek regularization in terms of policy of regularization, framed by the Government of Himachal Pradesh, after their having completed requisite period of service or not, especially when similarly situate persons in other departments have been already granted benefit of policy of regularization framed by Government of Himachal Pradesh from time to time?"
17. Though in the cases at hand, respective counsel made their submissions, but this Court with a view to avoid repetition, shall be taking note of submissions made by Mr. C.N. Singh, Advocate Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan and Mr. Sunil Mohan Goel, Senior Advocates, who made similar submissions.
18. Above named counsel vehemently argued that society-
respondent No.4 is a camouflage because same is controlled by respondents No. 1 & 2. They further submitted that petitioners herein came to be employed against various posts as detailed herein above, through society, but have been discharging duties in Horticulture Department as well as its subsidiaries i.e. HPMC, H.P. Agriculture Marketing Board, State Horticulture Universities in the State, H.P. Nursery Management Societies etc. They further submitted that day to day management of the society is controlled and managed by the official of the Department of Horticulture and very object and aim of the society itself suggest that same has been created for execution of ::: Downloaded on - 23/09/2025 21:28:14 :::CIS
- 22 - 2025:HHC:33209 various projects of the Department of Horticulture, as a result thereof, petitioners who are said to be appointed through societies are actually .
performing the work of Horticulture Department. If it is so, they being employees of the Horticulture Department, for all intents and purposes, are entitled to be given benefit of regularization in terms of policy of regularization framed by the Government of Himachal Pradesh from time to time. Above named counsel further argued that Headquarter of the Society is the office of Himachal Pradesh Horticulture Produce Marketing and Processing Corporation Ltd. (A State Government Undertaking) Nigam Vihar, Shimla-2, which fact is evident from the Certificate of Registration alongwith the Memorandum of Association and Rules & Regulations enclosed therewith (Annexure P-2).
19. They submitted that Society has been formed/created as an autonomous body of the Government of Himachal Pradesh for monitoring, coordination and for implementation of schemes funded by World Bank or any other externally financed/aided Horticulture Project(s) as may be authorized by the Government of Himachal Pradesh from time to time, but Society will focus on carrying out activities as laid down in the Project Report/Project Implementation Plan of the Horticulture Development Project or any other projects taken up by the State Government.
::: Downloaded on - 23/09/2025 21:28:14 :::CIS- 23 - 2025:HHC:33209
20. While referring to various Clauses of bye-laws of the societies, learned senior counsel representing the petitioners, argued .
that management of the society and functionary are Government Officials i.e. Additional Chief Secretary (Horticulture), HP, Additional Chief Secretary(Fin.), HP Principal Government service Secretary (Printing & Stationary) & Managing Director HPMC, Director of Horticulture, HP & Joint Controller Finance, Govt. of Himachal Pradesh, which fact itself suggests that though society has been shown as autonomous body, but ultimate control lies with officers of the Government.
21. They submitted that as per clause 28, the Officers and staff of the Society except contractual and outsourced personnel with specialized skill as provided in the Project Implementation Plan (PIP) of the Horticulture Development Project, shall be ideally on deputation/secondment from the State Government. Though Society may create such post as provided in the Project Implementation Plan (PIP), but as approved by the State Government and with the concurrence of the Governing Council of Society and with the prior approval of the State Government. However, in the case of suitable officers and staff from the Government being not available, the Executive Committee may authorize hiring of contractual employees for the positions in the Society, meant for Government staff.
::: Downloaded on - 23/09/2025 21:28:14 :::CIS- 24 - 2025:HHC:33209
22. They argued that whatever staff is hired/recruited by the Society even on temporary or daily wages basis would be with the .
approval of State Government. If it is so, staff engaged in the Society performing the work of Horticulture Department can be said to be employees of State Government for all intents and purposes and as such, they are also required to be given benefit of regularization in terms of policy of regularization framed by the Government of Himachal Pradesh from time to time. In support of aforesaid submissions, they also placed reliance upon some judgments, which shall be taken note of in later part of the judgment.
23. To the contrary, Mr. Anup Rattan, learned Advocate General, while supporting the impugned action of the respondents in as much as not granting regularization to the petitioners, vehemently argued that petitioners were employed as contractual employees on temporary basis under various schemes/projects for a specific period that too by the society. He further argued that appointments were made pursuant to the advertisement clearly stating terms and conditions of such contractual appointments. He further submitted that respondents have no right to claim regularization in terms of policy of regularization framed by the Government of Himachal Pradesh. He further submitted that core issue in the present matter concerns about treating the employees engaged on temporary/contractual/ project basis under schemes funded by the ::: Downloaded on - 23/09/2025 21:28:14 :::CIS
- 25 - 2025:HHC:33209 State, Central Government or external agencies such as World Bank, at par with the government employees under the regular cadre of the .
State of Himachal Pradesh, which is wholly impermissible. He submitted that engagements of the petitioners through society do not constitute regular service under the State and therefore, they have no enforceable right to regularization or absorption into the regular cadre of the State.
24. He further argued that petitioners herein cannot claim parity with employees, who were appointed through Himachal Pradesh Natural Resource Management Society (HPNRMS), Integrated Watershed Development Project (IWDP), H.P. Zoo Conservation Society under Forest department -Sarv Shiksha Abhiyan, HP School Education Society under Education department, E- governance Societies under Department of Revenue, H.P. Pollution Control Board, Himachal Pradesh Power Corporation, H.P. Red Cross Society, Himurja, Rogi Kalyan Samiti, District Rural Agency (DRDA), for the reason that these societies were created and funded by the State of Himachal Pradesh. In some of the cases, persons therein were offered appointment directly by the department, but in the instant case all the petitioners have been given appointment by the society that too with clear cut understanding that for all intents and purposes, they shall be deemed to be employee of society and not of respondent-State. He further submitted that while offering appointment to them, it was ::: Downloaded on - 23/09/2025 21:28:14 :::CIS
- 26 - 2025:HHC:33209 made clear to them that they shall not seek any regularization in terms of policy of regularization on account of being employees of the .
society.
25. Though judgments pressed into service by the learned Advocate General shall be taken note in later part of the judgment, but at this stage, it would be apt to take note of his submission that this Court in certain cases while directing respondent-State to regularize the employees of the societies as detailed herein above, failed to take note of law laid down in State of Himachal Pradesh v. Nodha Ram (AIR 1997 SC 1445), whereby Hon'ble Apex Court while setting aside the judgment passed by this Court, categorically held that no vested right can be created in temporary employment and State cannot be directed to regularize in absence of any existing vacancies. While referring to afore judgment, Mr. Rattan, further argued that in the afore case after completion of the scheme, employees working therein were disengaged, but High Court gave interim direction for their re-
engagement, which order was subsequently set-aside by the Hon'ble Apex Court, observing that such directions amount to creating posts in a non-existent establishment and State cannot be directed to do so.
26. He further submitted that in earlier judgment passed in the case of societies as detailed herein above, different Benches of this Court, failed to take note of judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in Mohd. Abdul Kadir & Anr. v. Director General of Police, Assam & ::: Downloaded on - 23/09/2025 21:28:14 :::CIS
- 27 - 2025:HHC:33209 Ors. 2009 (6) SCC 611, wherein it came to be ruled that temporary employees engaged for a particular scheme/project cannot claim .
regularization. He submitted that it specifically came to be ruled in the aforesaid judgment that these employees cannot claim continuance or regularization in another scheme/ project as a matter of right, rather their services being co-terminus with the project need to be terminated. Court also observed that extension of length of scheme does not entitle an adhoc employee to seek permanency or regularization. r
27. While Referring to judgment passed by the Constitution Bench in State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (2006) 4 SCC 1, learned Advocate General, argued that public employment must strictly comply with the constitutional mandate under Articles 14 and 16. He submitted that temporary, adhoc, daily wage or contractual employees do not acquire any legal right to seek regularization merely by virtue of their engagement or continued service, rather regularization can be considered only where the employees were duly qualified, appointed against duly sanctioned posts and their appointments were made through a regular and transparent recruitment process in accordance with the applicable rules. In nutshell, Mr. Rattan, while referring to aforesaid judgments attempted to argue that judgments passed by Coordinate Bench this Court thereby holding employees of society entitled for regularization are per-incuriam on account of the fact that ::: Downloaded on - 23/09/2025 21:28:14 :::CIS
- 28 - 2025:HHC:33209 respective courts while delivering such judgments, failed to take note of judgments cited by the learned Advocate General, as noticed herein .
above.
28. To substantiate his argument with regard to rule of per-
incuriam, learned Advocate General, referred to the judgments passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Indore Development Authority v.
Shailendra (2018) 3 SCC 412, in Fuerst Day Lawson Ltd. v. Jindal Exports Ltd (2001) 6 SCC 356 and in M/s Bajaj Alliance General v.
Rambha Devi (Civil Appeal No. 841 of 2018), applicability, if any, whereof shall be discussed while ascertaining the correctness of rival submissions made by the respective counsel representing the parties to the lis.
29. With the afore pleadings as well as submissions made at the behest of the learned counsel for the parties to the lis, this Court shall make an endevour to find out correct answer to the issues framed in the earlier part of the judgment. Since all the issues are interconnected, this Court shall deal with the same together.
30. It is not in dispute that respondent-State has formed a society and got it registered under Himachal Pradesh Societies Registration Act 2006, by the name of Himachal Pradesh Horticulture Development Society and its headquarters is the office of Himachal Pradesh Horticulture Produce Marketing and Processing Corporation Ltd. ( A State Undertaking), but to ascertain extent of control of State ::: Downloaded on - 23/09/2025 21:28:14 :::CIS
- 29 - 2025:HHC:33209 over the respondent society, this Court finds it necessary to take note of certain terms and conditions of Memorandum of Association and .
rules and regulations, which are otherwise available at page-39 to 51 of the paper book.
31. Clause 4 of Memorandum of Association and rules and regulations ( Pg-39 to 51) of Respondent no.4, is as under:
"4. Purposes and Objectives:
(i) The Society shall function as an autonomous body of the Government of Himachal Pradesh for monitoring, coordination and/or implementation of World Bank or any other externally financed/aided Horticulture Project(s) as may be authorized by the Government of Himachal Pradesh from time to time.
(ii) Primarily, the Society will focus on carrying out activities as laid down in the Project Report/Project Implementation Plan of the Horticulture Development Project or any other project taken up by the State Government with World Bank or other external finance/aid or centrally funded or aided by any other source as may be authorized by the State Government.
(iii) Specifically, the basic objective of the Society is to take up activities and make investments through various implementing agencies/ line departments of the State Government for achieving the development objectives of the Horticulture Development Project taken up by the State Government.
32. As per the societies bye-Laws Clause 5, the functions of the Society are as under:
(i) to take/undertake all actions/activities that may be necessary for preparation of Project Implementation Plan and its implementation under Horticulture Development Project or other Projects relating to horticulture, as may be authorized by the State Government, hereinafter also called as "Project", in ::: Downloaded on - 23/09/2025 21:28:14 :::CIS
- 30 - 2025:HHC:33209 particular for achievement of the development objectives of individual Project;
.
(ii) To manage such institutions and properties so handed over to the Society for the purpose of implementation of Horticulture development Project and to create separate agencies or bodies for this purpose;
(iii) To create duly empowered management mechanism, through participation of/collaboration with various stakeholders, as deemed necessary for achievement of development objectives of the Project;
(iv) To establish an appropriate implementation, coordination and monitoring mechanism at the district, sub-division, block, village and Panchayat levels and to delegate appropriate powers to such bodies as may be necessary for implementation of the Project;
(v) To undertake innovative initiatives in areas related to the Project, as stated in the relevant Project Reports/Project Implementation Plan or as recommended by the Review Missions of the Project Funding Agencies or as may be directed by the State Government;
vi) To create technical, administrative and other posts considered necessary for implementation of the Project in the Society, and to retain such posts in the Society and to make payments for the same, pursuant to provisions in this regard in the Rules & Regulations of the Society. the creation of such posts, however, shall be as per stipulations of the Project Report/Project Implementation Plan of the Project, and such posts duly approved by the State Government;
(vii) To make rules and regulations, not inconsistent with the Memorandum of Association, in conduct of activities of the Society;
(viii) To accept grants of money, securities of property and to undertake and accept management of any endowment consistent with the object of the Project;::: Downloaded on - 23/09/2025 21:28:14 :::CIS
- 31 - 2025:HHC:33209
(ix) To prepare annual reports, monthly, quarterly and annual accounts of the Society;
.
(x) To purchase, hire, dispose through formal auction, take on lease, exchange or otherwise acquire property both movable and immovable, in pursuance of objectives of the Project and otherwise to achieve the objectives of the Society;
(xi) To commit expenditure as received from the Government or any other source in pursuance of objectives the Project and that of Society; and
(xii) To take all such actions, including those not mentioned above, as may be necessary for or incidental to the achievements of development objectives of the Project and that of the Society.
33. All its management and functionary are Government Officials i.e. Additional Chief Secretary(Hort.), HP, Additional Chief Secretary(Fin.), HP Secretary (Printing & Stationary) & MD.HPMC, Director of Horticulture, HP & Joint Controller Finance, Govt. of H.P. is in order to achieve the aims and object of the Respondent no.1 & 2 and execute its works , which included works in various nature of Projects which are externally, internally as well as ,world bank funded, are executed.
34. In terms of the RULES & REGULATIONS of the Society, Clause 2 (vi) "Chief Executive Officer" means the Chief Executive Officer of the Society to be appointed by the State Government and shall be an officer of Indian Administrative Service cadre. The Chief Executive Officer shall also be the Project Director of Himachal Pradesh Horticulture Development Project.
::: Downloaded on - 23/09/2025 21:28:14 :::CIS- 32 - 2025:HHC:33209
35. Clause 2 (vii) Executive Committee" means the Body which is constituted as such under Section-15 of the Act ibid, as the .
Governing Body of the Society and which is responsible for overall management of the Society and implementation of the Project or Projects. Clause 2 (xi) "Implementing Agencies" means the line departments of the Government of Himachal Pradesh and other institutions entrusted with the responsibility of implementing the Project as determined by the Government of HP and as laid down in the Project Implementation Plan. Clause 2 (x) "State Government"
means the Government of Himachal Pradesh. Clause 2 (xii) "Officers and Staff" means the officers and staff in the employment of the Society including the officers, staff, and consultants working in the Society- part time or full-time. This will also include the Government officers on deputation and placed on Service Disposal basis, in addition to their own duties in the parent Government Department.
Clause 2 (xiv) "PIU" means the Project Implementation Unit (PIU), under the Society, located in the Offices of the implementing Government Departments/Corporations created for implementation of the Horticulture Development Project, determined by the Government of HP. Clause 2 (xvi) "Project Director" means the Project Director of Horticulture Development Project. Clause 2 (xvii) "Project" means Horticulture Development Project or any other Project(s) as may be ::: Downloaded on - 23/09/2025 21:28:14 :::CIS
- 33 - 2025:HHC:33209 entrusted by the Government of Himachal Pradesh from time to time for coordination, monitoring and/or implementation by the Society.
.
36. Clause 3 (xiii) Implementing Agency means departments of the Government of HP and autonomous institutions entrusted with the responsibility of implementing Horticulture Development Project or any other "Projects" as determined by the State Government and as laid down in the Project Implementation Plan.
Such departments/ agencies may include Departments of Horticulture, Agriculture, Animal Husbandry, Fisheries, I&PH, PWD, Rural Development, Environment & Forest, etc. and Agencies/Bodies such as Horticulture & Agriculture Universities, HPMC, Marketing Boards/Committees, Self Help Groups (SHG), Farmers Interest Groups (FIGs), Agro Service Groups (ASGs), NGOs etc., to foster public private partnership in order to achieve the objectives and goals of the Project.
clause 3 (xiv) "PD" means the Project Director of H.P. Horticulture Development Project and Chief Executive Officer of the Society, appointed as such by the State Government.
37. As per Clause 4 Management and flow of funds to Society: (i) The State Government shall sanction and release funds in the shape of Grant-in-aid in one or more than one installment for implementation of Horticulture Development Project or any other project to the Society. (ii) The Society shall be responsible for submission of Utilization Certificate for the funds released to it. (iii) ::: Downloaded on - 23/09/2025 21:28:14 :::CIS
- 34 - 2025:HHC:33209 Any interest earned by Society on un-utilized funds will be utilized for the activities of the Society with the permission of the Project funding .
agency.
38. Clause 5 deals with General Body/Governing Council(GC) comprises of highest government officials 1. Chief Secretary to the Govt. of H.P. 2. Additional Chief Secretary/Principal Secretary(Hort.) to the Government of HP Additional Chief Secretary/Principal Secretary/ Secretary (Agriculture), HP Additional Chief Secretary/Principal r Secretary/Secretary(IPH),HP| Additional Chief Secretary/Principal Secretary/Secretary(Finance), HP Additional Chief Secretary/Principal Secretary/Secretary(RDD),HP Additional Secretary/Secretary (Forests), HP 8. Vice Chancellor, Dr.Y.S. Parmar University for Horticulture and Forestry, Solan, HP Managing Director, HPMC 10 CEO-cum-Project Director 11 Advisor Planning H.P. 12.
Director of Agriculture, HP 13. Director of Horticulture, HP 14.
Managing Director, HP Agriculture Marketing Board 15. Chief General Manager NABARD, Shimla 16 Controller / Jt. Controller (Fin), GOHP.
Four members will be nominated by the President of the Governing Council, who shall be prominent Horticulture/Agriculture scientists and Horticulturists. However, they shall not have the right to vote.
39. Clause 8 lays down the Powers and Functions of the Governing Council: (i) To review the implementation of Horticulture Development Project and to give overall policy guidance and directions ::: Downloaded on - 23/09/2025 21:28:14 :::CIS
- 35 - 2025:HHC:33209 for efficient functioning of the Society; (ii) To consider the balance sheet and audited accounts and their approval; (iii) To consider the .
annual reports and approval of the same; (iv) To amend the Rules & Regulations of the Society.
40. From bare perusal of Clauses 9,10,11,12,13,14,15 24, 25 it can be inferred that the Department of Horticulture, Government of H.P has the overall control over the management and functioning of the Society.
41. Perusal of Clause 28 reveals that the Officers and staff of the Society except contractual and outsourced personnel with specialized skill as provided in the Project Implementation Plan (PIP) of the Horticulture Development Project shall be ideally on deputation/secondment from the State Government. Society may create such post as provided in the Project Implementation Plan (PIP), as approved by the State Government, and with the concurrence of the Governing Council of Society and approval of the State Government.
However, in the case of suitable officers and staff from the Government being not available, the Executive Committee may authorize hiring of contractual employees for the positions in the Society, meant for Government staff.
i. Whatever staff is hired/recruited by the Society even on temporary or daily wages basis would be with the approval of State Government. The staff hired /recruited by Society would be Society's own staff and shall belong to the Society only. In case of the dissolution, the services of employees of Society would stand ::: Downloaded on - 23/09/2025 21:28:14 :::CIS
- 36 - 2025:HHC:33209 automatically dispensed with. The Rules, Instructions and guidelines as are framed /issued by the Society or Governing Body .
from time to time shall Govern them.
ii. The Society shall strictly implement the provisions of Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace Act-2013.
42. Various nature of posts of Staff (Page 53 to 55 of the paperbook) which included posts of Superintendent Engineer , Executive Engineer, Assistant Engineer, Jr. Engineer(Civil/Electrical/ Mechanical/ Instrumentation, Draftsman , Facilitator, Surveyors, Technical Facilitator, Procumbent Officer, Programmer MA Procurement, MA Accounts, Farm Manager, Assistant Farm Manager, Office Assistant( Management/IT ) etc. etc. were advertised by the Director Horticulture /Project Manager, for the implementation of World Bank funded "Himachal Pradesh Horticulture Development Project(HPHDP) (Page 496 to 507 of the paperbook) ( Annexure P-3).
43. Proper Recruitment and selection process based upon well laid down eligibility criteria etc on various nature of posts of Staff which included posts of Superintendent Engineer , Executive Engineer, Assistant Engineer, Jr. Engineer(Civil/Electrical/ Mechanical/ Instrumentation, Draftsman , Facilitator, Surveyors, Technical Facilitator, Procumbent Officer, Programmer MA Procurement, MA Accounts, Farm Manager, Assistant Farm Manager, Office Assistant( Management/IT ) etc etc was undertaken by the Department of Horticulture and based upon merit (Page-63 of the paper book) appointments were made by the Director of Horticulture.
::: Downloaded on - 23/09/2025 21:28:14 :::CIS- 37 - 2025:HHC:33209
44. Such employees appointed on merit on different dates & post on contract bases (Page 66 to 69 of the paper book), continued .
to perform their respective duties for the Department, for their works ,being implemented and executed through "The Himachal Pradesh Horticulture Development Society (i.e. Respondent no.4) through various projects, works etc, undertaken by the Department of Horticulture (Page 413-425 of the paper book).
45. Such employees continued beyond their recruitment period ( 11 months) r and performed works for the Department of Horticulture and have completed more then 4 to 7 years of continous contractual services.
46. In terms of office letter dated 28.12.2021 & 30.04.2023 the respondents-State decided to regularize the service of contractual employees, who were due to complete two years of continuous service as on 30.9.2021. (Annexure P-7) ( Pg no.70 to 73 of the paper book)
47. Respondents No.1 to 3 in para 3 (page 231 to 232 of the paper book) have admitted the fact that Society is an autonomous body of the Government of H.P. for monitoring ,coordination and implementation of World Bank or any other externally financed/aided or centrally funded or aided by any other source as may be authorized by the State Government.
48. Respondents No.1 to 3 in para 23 (page 245 to 247) while annexing copy of judgment dated 17.05.2016 passed in LPA no.228 of ::: Downloaded on - 23/09/2025 21:28:14 :::CIS
- 38 - 2025:HHC:33209 2012 admitted the fact that in HIMURJA, similarly situate of contractual employees (Motivators) were regularized by the State of .
H.P.
49. Though from careful perusal of various provisions contained in the memorandum of association and rules and regulations, it becomes clear that Himachal Pradesh Horticulture development society has been created for execution of various projects of Horticulture development, but respondent-State/department of horticulture, its higher officials cum governing council have full control on the day to day activities of respondent No.3.
50. Admittedly, in somewhat similar situation, some of other societies created by the Government namely Himachal Pradesh Natural Resources Management Society (HPNRMS) / Forest Department, Him Urja Project etc. and other projects, initially engaged employees on temporary, contract basis but were subsequently adjusted/ regularized /transferred to its successor undertaking against vacant posts in the establishment along with seniority and other benefits and some of the employees were adjusted in other various departments including forest department, and thereafter they were also regularized in terms of the regularization policy framed by the Government of Himachal Pradesh. Some of the persons, who are engaged as Horticulture Development Officer (HDO) on daily wage basis in the Mid Himalayan Watershed Development Project namely ::: Downloaded on - 23/09/2025 21:28:14 :::CIS
- 39 - 2025:HHC:33209 Sh. Jagat Singh Negi and Vinay Kumar Class-I (Gazetted) post, were regularized in the horticulture department. Similarly persons namely .
Sh. Shyam Lal, Yog Raj, Ram Krishan, Ram Lal, Devender Singh, Liaquat Ali, all (class IV employees) stand regularized by respondents either in the government department or in the project itself as is evident from Annexures P-10 to P-11, available at Pages No.78 to 180 & 456-468.
51. Similar employees of Government created/ registered Societies, Project, NGOs r of the State of H.P./Department (namely Himachal Pradesh Natural Resources Management Society (HPNRMS), Integrated Watershed Development Project (IWDP), H.P. Zoo Conservation Society under Forest department -Sarv Shiksha Abhiyan ,HP School Education Society under Education department, E-
governance Societies under Department of Revenue , H.P. Pollution Control Board, Himachal Pradesh Power Corporation, H.P. Red Cross Society, Himurja, Rogi Kalyan Samiti, District Rural Agency (DRDA) , HP MHWD), stand regularized /absorbed in government department.
52. The similarly situated person had approached the Hon'ble Court for similar relief CWPOA no.3562 of 2019 ( Sant Ram & Anr vs State of H.P. & Ors) and same was granted by the Hon'ble Court in their favour while interpreting the applicability of said regularization policy and extending the benefits of provisions of the policy framed by the State Government in favour of the employees of the Society/Project ::: Downloaded on - 23/09/2025 21:28:14 :::CIS
- 40 - 2025:HHC:33209 also. The aforementioned judgment was assailed by the State by way of LPA no.153 of 2023 ( State of H.P. & Ors vs Sant Ram & Anr) .
(Annexure P-15). The LPA was dismissed vide Division bench judgment dated 07.10.2023 by upholding the judgment dated 6.09.2022 .
Judgment passed in LPA, upholding the judgment passed in CWPOA No. 35562 of 2019, came to be upheld by the Hon'ble Apex Court on 06.05.2025.
53. Junior Engineers, Assistant Engineers and Draftsmen etc., employed with Himachal Pradesh School Education Society ( HPSES) on contract basis in projects, such as Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan(SSA), Rashtriya Madhyamik Shiksha Abhiyan (RMSA), HPPWD, I & PH etc who had approached this Court for their retrospective regularization by way of CWP No.3743 of 2021 (Vikas Gupta & Ors vs State of H.P. & Ors) stand regularized (Annexure P-
16). The Hon'ble Court allowed all such CWP's granting benefit of Regularization from the due date in terms of Government Policy.
54. It is quite apparent from the pleadings as well as other material adduced on record that respondents No.1 & 2 are managing the entire affairs and getting its work done through its self created , managed ,monitored ,funded Societies, projects etc by employing and engaging the services of the Petitioner on contract basis in its departments units etc, from time to time. Their recruitment, appointment & T & C are finalized by the Respondent no.1 & 2 /top ::: Downloaded on - 23/09/2025 21:28:14 :::CIS
- 41 - 2025:HHC:33209 govt. officials, and HR policy etc is formulated by the Government/Department as such .As such for all intents and purpose .
the Petitioners /employees are under the control of Respondent no.1 & 2 /State and hence beneficial government policies regarding regularization policy is applicable to them as well.
55. It was submitted that the Government of Himachal Pradesh exercises complete control over the Society, as it is owned, controlled, and funded entirely by the State Government, therefore while making the submission that it is a fit case where this Court has to lift the corporate veil to look into the affairs of the Society and the manner in which the present petitioners who though are being employed in a Society and that also for a project are actually the employees of the State Government and working for the advancement of policies of the State Government for betterment of Horticulturist of the Himachal Pradesh through the Horticulture Department. In this regard reliance is placed upon case titled as Kapila Hingorani Vs. State of Bihar, 2003 (6) SCC 1, relevant paras i.e. 23 to 27 and 71 to 74, read as under:
"25. It is now well-settled that the corporate veil can in certain situations be pierced or lifted. The principles behind the doctrine is a changing concept and it is expanding its horizon as was held in the State of U.P. and Ors. v. Renusagar Power Company and Ors., [1988] 4 SCC 59. The ratio of the said decision clearly suggests that whenever a corporate entity is abused for an unjust and inequitable purpose, the court would not hesitate to lift the veil and look into the realities so as to identify the persons who are guilty and liable therefor.::: Downloaded on - 23/09/2025 21:28:14 :::CIS
- 42 - 2025:HHC:33209
26.The proposition that a company although may have only one shareholder will be distinct juristic person as adumbrated in Salomon v. Salomon and Co., (1897) AC 22, has time and again .
been visited the application of doctrine of lifting the corporate veil in revenue and taxation matters. See Dal Chand and Ors. v.
Commissioner of Income Tax, Punjab, [1944] 12 ITR 458 and Juggilal Kamlapat v. Commissioner of Income Tax, U.P., [1969] 1 SCR 988 = (1969) 73 ITR 702.
27.The corporate veil indisputably can be pierced when the corporate personality is found to be opposed to justice, convenience and interest of the revenue or workman or against public interest. See C.I.T. Madras v The Meenakshi Mills Ltd and Ors., [1967] 1 SCR 934; Workmen Employed in Assn. Rubber Industry Ltd., Bhavnagar v. Associated Rubber Industry Ltd., Bhavnagar and Anr. [1985] 4 SCC 11; New Horizons Ltd. and Anr. v Union of India and Ors., [1995] 1 SCC 478; State of U.P. and Ors. v. Renusagar Power Co. and Ors. , [1988] 4 SCC 59; Hussainbhai, Calicut v. The Hath Factory Thezhilali Union, Kozhikode and Ors., [1978] 4 SCC 257 and Secretary H.S.E.B. v. Suresh and Ors., [1999] 3 SCC 601."
"71.The States of India are welfare States. They having regard to the constitutional provisions adumbrated in the Constitution of India and in particular Part IV thereof laying down the Directive Principles of the State Policy and Part IVA laying down the Fundamental Duties are bound to preserve the practice to maintain the human dignity.
72.We are of the opinion that the State, thus, has made itself liable to mitigate the sufferings of the employees of the public sector undertakings or the government companies.
74.We, however, hasten to add that we do not intend to lay down a law, as at present advised, that the State is directly or vicariously liable to pay salaries/remunerations of the employees of the public sector undertakings or the Government companies in all situations. We, as explained hereinbefore, only say that the State cannot escape its liability when a human rights problem of such magnitude involving the starvation deaths and/or suicide by the employees has taken place by reason of non-payment of salary to the employees of Public Sector Undertaking for such a long time. We are not issuing any direction as against the State of Jharkhand as no step had admittedly been taken by the Central Government in terms of Section 65 of the Bihar Reorganisation Act and furthermore as only four public sector undertakings have been transferred to the State of Jharkhand in respect whereof the petitioner does not make any grievance."::: Downloaded on - 23/09/2025 21:28:14 :::CIS
- 43 - 2025:HHC:33209
56. It is clear from the aforesaid exposition of law that the State, as a welfare entity, has a constitutional duty under the Directive .
Principles to protect human dignity. While the court refrains from laying down a blanket rule making the State directly liable for salaries of public sector employees, it emphasizes that the State cannot shirk its responsibility and in cases where entity is used for unjust, inequitable, or fraudulent purposes, corporate veil can be lifted/ pierced.
57. In some of the cases the advertisement was issued by the Project Director, H.P. Horticulture Development Society and in some of the cases the advertisement was issued by the Director of Horticulture Himachal Pradesh. Similarly in some of the cases the appointment order of the petitioners have been issued by the Project Director, H.P. Horticulture Development Society and in some of the cases by Director of Horticulture, Himachal Pradesh. In Nitin Thakur case CWP No,.
4971 the appointment letter of the petitioner (Annexure P-4, Page-63) has been issued by the Director of Horticulture . Moreover the petitioner has further placed on record, by way of an Application (CMP 22210 of 2024) which is at Page No. 486 of paper book (Annexure A-1), copy of the Project Agreement entered into between International Development Association and the State of Himachal Pradesh Page-496 whereby the project was for the period of 20 years, which is to end in the year 2036. The perusal of the agreement would further show that ::: Downloaded on - 23/09/2025 21:28:14 :::CIS
- 44 - 2025:HHC:33209 the signatory of the said agreement is the authorized signatory International Development Association and Principal Secretary .
(Horticulture) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh (Page-498). The petitioner has further placed on record (Page 508 to 602 of the paper book) various proceedings of meeting of Governing Council of H.P. Horticulture Development Society to demonstrate that all the Attendees / Members of the said meeting were the highest functionaries of the State of Himachal Pradesh.
58. It would be apt to take note of certain judgments passed by the Coordinate Benches of this Court, Division Bench of this Court as well as Hon'ble Apex Court, wherein in similarly facts and circumstances, a direction came to be issued to the respondents to regularize the persons, who were appointed through different projects/society.
59. Reliance in this regard is placed upon judgment dated 15.6.2023 passed by this Court in CWPOA No. 1660 of 2020, titled as Anant Ram and Others v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Others, relevant paras whereof read as under:
"4.Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General vehemently argued that petitioners in CWP Nos. 1102 and 1119 of 2011 cannot be said to be similar situate to the petitioners herein for the reason that initially they were given appointment on contract basis by the government, but he was unable to dispute this fact that after certain point of time services of the petitioners in aforesaid cases were taken over by Rogi Kalyan Samiti and when their services were regularized in terms of the ::: Downloaded on - 23/09/2025 21:28:14 :::CIS
- 45 - 2025:HHC:33209 policy of regularization framed by Government of Himachal Pradesh, they were considered to be employee of Rogi Kalyan .
Samiti not of the government. Learned Additional Advocate General further argued that there is no policy to regularize services of the employees, who were given appointment by the private/independent autonomous society, but he was unable to explain that under what circumstances petitioners in CWP Nos. 1102 and 1119 of 2011, who at the time of their regularization were working under Rogi Kalyan Samiti, were regularized. If reply filed by the respondents to the afore petition is perused in its entirety, it clearly reveals that petitioners in aforesaid writ petitions though were initially engaged by the government for a period of one month and thereafter their services were taken over by Rogi Kalyan Samiti, meaning thereby services of the petitioners in aforesaid cases were regularized while they were employees of Rogi Kalyan Samiti not of the Government.
5. Moreover, this Court cannot lose sight of the fact that affairs of Rogi Kalyan Samiti are managed by Member Secretarycum-
Chief Medical Officer, Regional Hospital, Bilaspur, meaning thereby, for all intents and purposes, persons working in Rogi Kalyan Samiti are the employees of hospital not of the society. Leaving everything aside, this Court sees no impediment in accepting the prayer made in the instant petition for the reason that similar situate persons, as have been taken note hereinabove, have been already granted benefits, as has been prayed in the instant petition. Denial of the relief, as prayed for in the instant petition, would amount to sheer discrimination among similar situate persons, which is not permissible under law.
60. In Review Petition 1 of 2024, titled as State of Himachal Pradesh and Others. V. Anant Ram and Others, this Court has held as under:::: Downloaded on - 23/09/2025 21:28:14 :::CIS
- 46 - 2025:HHC:33209 " Consequently, in view of above, as well as principles laid down in the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in .
Kamlesh Vermavs. Mayawati & Ors, (2013)8 SCC 320 and Akhilesh Yadav Etc. vs. Vishwanath Chaturvedi, (2013) 2 SCC 1, the present petition is dismissed. Pending applications, if any, are also disposed of."
61. Coordinate Bench of this Court in CWPOA No. 31 of 2019, Jalmu Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Others, decided on 12.10.2022, has held as under:
"14. In the backdrop of what has been discussed herein above, this Court is of the considered view that the act of denying regularization to the petitioner on the basis of instructions, which have been issued by the State Government pertaining to the regularization of contract appointees, simply on the ground that the petitioner does not happens to be an employee of a Government Department, is arbitrary and discriminatory. The work which is being done by the Society otherwise is the work which has to be carried out by the State Government and State Government in its wisdom rather than executing said work from the department, decided to constitute a Society to undertake 18 various activities and it was thereafter that the services of the petitioner and may be other incumbents similarly situated like the petitioner, were taken on contract basis.
15. The decision to constitute the Society was that of the Government. The decision to engage employees in the Society on contract basis was that of the government. Therefore, in these circumstances, the benefit of the instructions which have been issued from time to time by the government pertaining to regularization of contract employees cannot be denied to the petitioner simply on the ground that he happens to an employee of the society and not of a government department.::: Downloaded on - 23/09/2025 21:28:14 :::CIS
- 47 - 2025:HHC:33209
16. As far as the stand of the respondents, as is also urged by learned Additional Advocate General, is concerned that the .
petitioner has accepted the terms and conditions of the appointment offered to him on contract basis without any condition, this Court holds that bargaining power of a person who is being offered appointment on contract basis cannot be compared to the employer. This Court is of the view that in such like circumstances, the persons like the petitioner, have no option but to accept the engagement on whatever terms, the same is offered to them and they per force sign the terms and conditions on dotted lines.
20. At this stage, it is relevant to refer to the judgment passed by Hon'ble Coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No. 1102 of 2011, titled as Sanjay and others Vs. State of H.P. and others, decided on 28.05.2014 and other connected matter. By way of this judgment, Hon'ble Coordinate Bench has been pleased to order the regularization of the services of the petitioners therein, who were serving in the Rogi Kalyan Samiti, in terms of the policy of regularization issued by the State Government. The Court has been informed that this judgment has attained finality and stands implemented. That being the case, as the petitioners in the abovementioned writ petition were also being denied regularization on the ground that they were not the employees of the State Government but that of a Society, the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Coordinate Bench squarely applies to the facts of the present case and therefore also, the petitioner cannot be denied regularization by the respondents on the ground that he happens to be an employee of the Society."
62. Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in CWPOA No. 6687 of 2020, titled as Roop Lal v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Others, decided on 19.4.2024, has held as under:
::: Downloaded on - 23/09/2025 21:28:14 :::CIS- 48 - 2025:HHC:33209 "13. The Council being a NGO created by the Government itself is fully owned and controlled by the Government of Himachal .
Pradesh and is a "State" within the meaning of Articles 12 and 226 of the Constitution of India. It, therefore, cannot discriminate the petitioner(s) under the cloak of so called "NGO".
14. The main plank of the defence of the respondents is that the petitioner(s) is a contract employee which is too familiar an argument, which we come across entailing exploitation of the employees and which, we feel does not reverberate with the 22 socialistic pattern of society to which a welfare State is committed to. Hence, such submission lacks of substantive substance since the respondents cannot escape the mandate of equality enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution, particularly, when there is no dispute that the counter-parts of the petitioner(s) are having regular employment and enjoying all facilities, be it pay scales, perks or pension etc.
15. There is no gainsaying that getting employment is a herculean task in view of the prevailing unemployment. Survival is the basic need as per the 'Maslow's' hierarchy of needs.
Admittedly, element of hope in human nature is gloriously precious and it kindles the energy to bear difficulties till they are overcome. The underling hope is that after long years of service, there could be happy end in parity of pay and ultimately pensionary benefits.
16. Besides this, there can be no two views about the fact that the legitimate aspirations of the employees are not extinguished and a situation is not created where hopes end in despair to convert it to be deceitful and treacherous.
17. The respondents have snuffed out the hope of regularizing the services of the petitioner(s) in not granting them equivalent pay and other allowances with their counter-parts and likewise denying them pension by forcing the petitioner(s) to work on 23 ::: Downloaded on - 23/09/2025 21:28:14 :::CIS
- 49 - 2025:HHC:33209 contract at the will and pleasure of the respondents for several years.
.
18. A legitimate aspiration of a secure job of the petitioner(s) has become the basis to play the game of chess involving the careers of the petitioner(s) with associated risks of a contractual job."
63. In LPA No. 66 of 2022, State of Himachal Pradesh and Others. V. Nishant Sharma and Others decided on 25.4.2024 (alongwith connected matters), Hon'ble Division Bench has held as under:
"36 It does not behove the State Government or augur well with this Court that the State as a model employer would play with rights of the writ petitioners in any manner as has been done in the instant case.
37 To say the least, the State has acted irrationally, unreasonably and even arbitrarily as rightly held by the learned writ court. The benefit of regularization to the petitioners on completion of 8 years continuous service on contract basis has been delayed by the writ respondents.
38 Financial implication pleaded by the State cannot be a ground to deny the writ petitioners their legitimate claim. The State has failed to justify reasons for denying benefit of regularization to the writ petitioners on completion of 8 years continuous service, but has regularized their services pursuant to the decision taken by the cabinet on 23.11.2020 that too when many of the writ petitioners had already put in contractual service for about 2 decades."
64. Reliance is also placed upon judgment dated 16.10.2024, passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No. 6275 of 2012, ::: Downloaded on - 23/09/2025 21:28:14 :::CIS
- 50 - 2025:HHC:33209 titled Shri Sanjay Gharu and Others v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Others., which reads as under:
.
"8. It is not disputed that the SAS has been implemented in the State since the year 1996 when the Himachal Pradesh School Education Society Service Regulation, 1996 was promulgated and thereafter the services of the petitioner were engaged in different years 5 ranging from 1996 to the year 2000. This clearly establishes that the project in no manner can be said to be temporary, since some of the petitioners have worked on contractual basis for nearly 18 years. Therefore, they are required to be afforded minimal guarantee of security of tenure. The respondents cannot deny the petitioners the benefits arising out of continuous service like pay scale and other service benefits. The action of the respondents in not regularizing the service of the petitioners, who have rendered service ranging from 12 to 18 years is not only arbitrary, but amounts to exploitation. It is, therefore, violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. It also amounts to unfair labour practice. The respondents-State cannot be permitted to exploit the petitioners and similarly situated persons by keeping them on contract basis for more than a decade. Indisputably, the respondents themselves have notified its policies from time to time providing for regularization of not only its daily waged, contractual, but even part time employees, such benefit cannot, therefore, legitimately be denied to the petitioners."
65. Reliance is also placed upon judgment dated 18.3.2025 passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CWPOA No. 2979 of 2020, titled as Bhupinder Singh Mehta and Others v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Others, wherein it has been held as under:
"4. Petitioners are seeking regularization of their services on completion of three years of contract service with respondents ::: Downloaded on - 23/09/2025 21:28:14 :::CIS
- 51 - 2025:HHC:33209 under the regularization policy of the State Government dated 04.05.2017 (A-7).
.
5. The specific case of the petitioners is that after closure of project their services have been utilized by respondents through respondent No. 3 on contractual basis. The contract for such purpose was entered into between the petitioners and the 3rd respondent.
6. Respondents have contested the claim of the petitioners on the ground that the petitioners have been re-engaged under CAMPA on contract basis w.e.f. 05.02.2013 and as per Clause-6 of the contract signed by the petitioners, it was made clear that their appointment was non-governmental. Further by making reference to Caluse-9 of the contract, it has been asserted that the petitioners had entered into a contract by agreeing not to claim any right for regular employment. The facts with respect to initial engagement of petitioners as Computer Operators on contract basis in the society and the closure of the society have not been denied.
20. The question, thus, arises whether the treatment of petitioners as a different class than the contractual employees engaged in different departments and other authorities of the State is legal and justified? The answer, in my considered view, has to be in negative.
21. Since, the petitioners for all intents and purposes have been engaged to discharge governmental functions, their status cannot be different than other contractual employees of the State Government. The initial recruitment of petitioners on contract basis and the longevity of continuous service are the facts which admittedly have taken place. It is not the case of respondents that the benefit of the communication dated 04.05.2017 has not been extended to the contractual employees engaged in other departments of the State Government.
26. In result, the petition is allowed. Respondents are directed to regularize the services of the petitioners in terms of ::: Downloaded on - 23/09/2025 21:28:14 :::CIS
- 52 - 2025:HHC:33209 communication dated 04.05.2017 (A-7) on completion of three years from the date of their respective contractual engagements .
by respondent No. 3. Petitioners have approached the Court in the year 2017 itself, therefore, they will also be entitled to all consequential benefits flowing from the date of regularization of their respective services."
66. In LPA No. 241 of 2023, titled State of Himachal Pradesh and Others v. Man Singh and Others, Division Bench of this Court has held as under:
"3. Pursuant to notice issued in the aforesaid petition, appellant Department filed reply, stating therein that respondents were not the employees of the department, rather they were engaged by a society that too on a project funded by the World Bank. Apart from above, appellant Department also raised plea that there is provision in the Project Implementation Plan for deployment of regular staff from the Forest and Line Departments and also to engage staff on contract basis by the project for its implementation. Appellant-Department also raised plea that since posts of daily wagers are non-existent in the current project and there is no work charge establishment in the Forest Department, prayer made by the respondents herein for conferment of work charge status and thereafter, regularization after their having completed eight years service, cannot be accepted.
10. Bare perusal of judgment passed by the learned Single Judge in Sant Ram (supra), which came to be relied upon by the learned Single Judge while passing impugned judgment clearly reveals that all the grounds raised in the instant appeal have been duly answered in the judgment rendered in Sant Ram (supra) and subsequently, in the appeal filed by the State in LPA No. 153 of 2023 titled State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors.v.::: Downloaded on - 23/09/2025 21:28:14 :::CIS
- 53 - 2025:HHC:33209 Sant Ram and Another, decided on 7.10.2023. While opposing the claim in Sant Ram case (supra), appellant department .
raised similar pleas and grounds as have been raised in the present appeal, but learned Single Judge in those proceedings rightly concluded that projects though may be funded by the World Bank to the extent of 80%, but it cannot be denied that these projects are government projects and as such, workers employed in this project on daily wage basis are to be governed by the policy of regularization and conferment of work charge status framed by the Government of Himachal Pradesh from time to time. In Sant Ram (supra), learned Single Judge, having taken not of the fact that petitioners in those cases were working for more than 16 years continuously, observed that petitioners definitely must have lost the chances of employment elsewhere. Otherwise, the longevity of projects and their objective has not come to an end. Aforesaid finding rendered by the learned Single Judge in Sant Ram subsequently came to be laid challenge by way of LPA filed by the appellant-department, but Coordinate Bench of this court while rendering judgment dated 7.10.2023, dismissed the appeal. Having taken note of the fact that number of similarly situate persons, who were working in the projects initiated/launched by the Forest Department, were regularized, coordinate Bench of this court while dismissing the LPA concurred with the finding returned by the learned Single Judge that plea of department that daily wage employees engaged in the Projects have to go alongwith closing of the project and they have not vested right in their favour, is not tenable in the eye of law.
11. Bare perusal of pleadings clearly reveals that appellant department rightly regularized the service of the employees similarly situate to the respondents and as such, it cannot be permitted to apply different yardstick for considering the claim of the respondents for conferment of the work charge status and regularization. Leaving everything aside, since it is not in ::: Downloaded on - 23/09/2025 21:28:14 :::CIS
- 54 - 2025:HHC:33209 dispute that judgment passed in Sant Ram (supra), on the basis of which case of the respondents herein was to be decided, has .
attained finality, appeal having filed by the department deserves outright dismissal. Since in terms of the judgment passed in Sant Ram (supra), persons similarly situate to the respondents have been extended the relief as has been prayed for by them, this Court sees no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment passed by the learned Single Judge, which is accordingly, upheld. Moreover, plea raised by the department that Forest Department is not a "work Charge" establishment is of no consequence in view of specific finding returned by coordinate Bench of this Court in case titled State of HP and Ors v. Ashwani Kumar, passed in CWP No. 3111 of 2016, decided on 10.5.2018, which has been further upheld by the Hon'ble Apex Court, while dismissing the SLP filed by State against the judgment of Ashwani Kumar (supra). Mandate given in judgment rendered in Ashwani Kumar (supra) has been further reiterated by the Division Bench in LPA No.165 of 2021, titled State of Himachal Pradesh & Others vs. Surajmani and Another decided on 12.1.2023, with the rider that actual benefits shall be restricted for a period of three years prior to filing of the petition."
67. In CWPOA No. 116 of 2019, titled as Rakesh Thakur v. State of Himachal Pradesh, this Court has held as under:
"9. Though, at this stage, Mr. Sudhir Bhatnagar, learned Additional Advocate General, attempted to state that no sanctioned post ever became available, enabling the Department to consider the case of the petitioner, but such plea of him is totally contrary to the record. Respondents in their reply to the petition have categorically stated that the petitioner was engaged on contractual basis and an agreement to the said effect was entered into by the petitioner with the Deputy Commissioner as Chief Executive Officer District Rural ::: Downloaded on - 23/09/2025 21:28:14 :::CIS
- 55 - 2025:HHC:33209 Development Agency, Shimla for project period against the temporary vacancy in the project of Government of India on .
consolidated monthly remuneration of Rs. 2500/- on lump sum basis, meaning thereby vacancy was very much available when services of the petitioner were taken on contract basis. Apart from above, petitioner has also placed on record vacancy position procured under Right to Information Act. Communication dated 22.05.2015 (Annexure A-26), perusal wherof reveals that in the year 2015, 39 posts of Junior Engineer were lying vacant in the Department of Rural Development. Leaving everything aside, it has also come on record that similar situate persons, who were initially appointed on contract basis were regularized on their having completed eight years regular service in different categories, if it is so, there is no reason for not regularizing the services of the petitioner from the date, he had completed eight years service on contract basis. Since appointment letter issued in favour of the petitioner itself suggests that same was issued by Deputy Commissioner Shimla, it does not lie in the mouth of the respondent-State to claim that respondents- State is not the appointing authority, rather reply filed on behalf of the respondents, which has been taken note hereinabove, clearly reveals that for all intent and purposes, petitioner was appointed against the post of Junior Engineer on contract basis by Government Agency i.e. Deputy Commissioner, Shimla, may be under some project. Since all the other persons working on the project have been regularized in their respective categories on their having completed eight years daily wage service, case of the petitioner is also required to be considered on the similar lines."
68. Reliance is also placed upon judgment dated 20.6.2025, passed by coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No. 12782 of 2024, ::: Downloaded on - 23/09/2025 21:28:14 :::CIS
- 56 - 2025:HHC:33209 titled as Pardeep Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Others, relevant paragraphs whereof read as under:
.
3(iv). Referring to an award passed by learned Labour Court- cum-Industrial Tribunal in Bishan Dass Vs. The Director Indo German Changer Project (Annexure P-8), learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Forest Department is liable to bear the responsibility of the Project/Society qua re-engagement and regularization etc. The award was affirmed in State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Bishan Dass (CWP No.2511 of 2009, decided on 18.06.2010) (Annexure P-9). Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.5588 of 2011 filed against the judgment dated 18.06.2010, was dismissed by the Hon'ble Apex Court on 08.04.2011 (Annexure P-11). It is not in dispute that the award has been implemented by the respondents.
3(v). Ground of pendency of Surajmani's4 case before the Hon'ble Apex Court is no more available to the respondents as the case now stands decided. The respondents in their reply to paras 22 and 23 of the writ petition have admitted that the case of the petitioner is similar to that of Sant Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. (CWPOA No.3562 of 2019, decided on 06.09.2022). Even otherwise, similar ratio of law has been laid down while allowing the case of contractual appointees for regularization of their services in Bhupinder Singh Mehta and Ors. v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. (CWPOA No.2979 of 2020, decided on 18.03.2025).
4. In view of above, this writ petition is disposed of by directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization of his services from due date in accordance with law laid down in Sant Ram and Bhupinder Singh Mehta within six weeks. The benefits, if any, flowing to the petitioner be also released within the aforesaid period.
::: Downloaded on - 23/09/2025 21:28:14 :::CIS- 57 - 2025:HHC:33209
69. Reliance is also placed upon judgment dated 5.8.2025, passed by coordinate Bench of this Court in CWPOA No. 771 of 2020, .
titled as Mansi Parihar v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Others, relevant paragraphs read as under:
13. Though, the respondents have tried to project that the petitioner was appointed against a specific project for limited period, but it has nowhere been suggested or shown that the continuance with the services of the petitioner for long period of 16 years is without any need or requirement. It is also not the case of the respondents that the Society has been created for limited period. Rather, the objectives of the Society make it abundantly clear that the Society has been created as an extended wing of the Government with a purpose to work in specialized field. It is also evidently clear from the material placed on record that the services of the petitioner have been utilized not only for the objectives of the Society, but she has been deputed from time to time as representative of respondent No.2- Department in various conferences and seminars. The petitioner has been deputed to assist the State Bio Diversity Board in addition to her already assigned responsibilities. The petitioner has also been deputed to handle the work of Himachal Pradesh Environment Fund. Even the responsibility for all kinds of publication related to environment by HIMCOSTE has been delegated to the petitioner.
18. The conduct of respondents, on the other hand, definitely cannot be said to be confirming to the constitutional mandate of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The purpose of formulation of institutions like Society herein is to decentralize the Governmental functions and Constitutional obligations.
Such institutions, thus, cannot be used to serve only certain vested interests. These in fact are extended wings of the Government. Running of such institutions on the shoulders of ::: Downloaded on - 23/09/2025 21:28:14 :::CIS
- 58 - 2025:HHC:33209 workers having no certainty of job cannot be said to serve public interest in any manner.
.
19. It is not in dispute that the State Government since long has been formulating Policies for regularization of its contract employees on completion of specific period of service. The Executive Committee of the Society in its first meeting held on 09.10.2017 has specifically adopted the Rules and Regulations of Government of Himachal Pradesh for the staff of the Society, more particularly, as applicable in the Department of Environment, Science & Technology. Since, the benefit of regularization policy by the State Government has been made available to all the Departments of the State Government, including respondent No.2-Department, the denial of applicability of such policy to the employees of the Society is not justified. The relevant extract of the first meeting of Executive Committee of the Society is reproduced as under:
"2. Adoption of Rules & Regulations of GoHP to staff in SEPSD. The EC approved and allowed adoption of the Rules and Regulations issued by the GoHP from time to time in the SEPSD as applicable in the Department of Environment, Science & Technology under various instructions issued from the Finance Department (FD) and Personal Department from time to time."
70. Reliance is also placed upon judgment dated 28.5.2025, passed in CWP No. 3697 of 2024, titled as Mayank Verma v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Others, relevant paras whereof read as under:
"2. Before passing further orders, it is apt to take note of Para No.21 of the reply filed by the respondents, whereby respondents have categorically admitted in their reply that case of the petitioner is similar to Sant Ram (supra), but at the time of filing of the reply, judgment in Sant Ram (supra) was under ::: Downloaded on - 23/09/2025 21:28:14 :::CIS
- 59 - 2025:HHC:33209 challenge before the Hon'ble Supreme Court by way of SLP. It is not in dispute that SLP filed by the respondents/State against .
judgment dated 07.10.2023, passed in LPA No.153 of 2023, titled State of H.P. and Others Vs. Sant Ram and Another, laying therein challenge to judgment dated 06.09.2022 passed by learned Single Judge in CWPOA No.3562 of 2019, stands dismissed vide judgment dated 06.02.2025, if it is so, case of the petitioner, being similarly situate to that of Sant Ram's case (supra), is also required to be allowed in terms of judgment rendered by Coordinate Bench of this Court in afore case, especially when respondents have themselves admitted that petitioner's case is similarly situate to Sant Ram (supra), and as such, respondents can be directed to decide the case of the petitioner in light of the aforesaid judgment rendered by this Court.
3. Consequently, In view of the above, the directions contained in the aforesaid judgment rendered by this Court in Sant Ram (supra) are made mutatis mutandis applicable in the present case for all intents and purposes and respondents are directed to regularize the services of the petitioner on the post of Data Entry Operator after completion of six years of contractual service w.e.f. 06.01.2016, with all consequential benefits.
However, actual monetary benefits shall be restricted to three years prior to the date of filing of the writ petition.
71. In LPA No. 153 of 2023, arising out of CWPOA 3562 of 2019 titled as State of Himachal Pradesh and Others. V. Sant Ram and Anr., Hon'ble Division Bench has held as under:
"7. The petitioners were claiming parity vis-a-vis similarly situated persons, whose details were given in Para-7 of the petition, for the purpose of conferment of work-charge status and regularization. To substantiate their contention, the ::: Downloaded on - 23/09/2025 21:28:14 :::CIS
- 60 - 2025:HHC:33209 petitioners appended with the petition as Annexure P-4 (Colly), the orders of regularization of some of the persons similarly .
situated as the petitioners. There are on record of the writ file order dated 23.07.1999, in terms whereof, one Shri Yog Raj was regularized and appointed as regular Chowkidar w.e.f. 23.06.1999 in the office of Assistant Project Director, Integrated Watershed Development Project, Kandi (Hills) area, Una; order dated 29.07.1999, in terms whereof, one Shri Ram Krishan was regularized as a regular Chowkidar again in the office of Assistant Project Director, Integrated Watershed Development Project, Kandi (Hills) area, Una, H.P.; Copy of proceedings of the Screening Committee, which recommended the regularization of one Shri Shri Ram Lal, son of Birju Lal, who had served in Kandi Project and was thereafter, serving in MHWD Project; and copy of order dated 14.01.1998, in terms whereof, one Shri Devender Singh was regularized against the post of Peon by the order of Assistant Project Director, Integrated Watershed Development Project (Hills), Kandi, area, Nahan, H.P. Incidently, all these orders of regularization were passed by the officers of the respondent/ Forest Department, which is not in dispute.
9. In light of the material which was on record before the learned Single Judge, it was rightly held by the learned Single Judge that as the appellants had regularized the services of the employees similarly situated as the petitioners as well as those working in special projects, therefore, different yardsticks could not be adopted for the petitioners. As the findings returned by the learned Single Judge are duly borne out from the writ record and as during the hearing of the appeal, it could not be demonstrated that the findings in the judgment under challenge were perverse and contrary to the record, we see no reason to interfere therewith, as we are also satisfied that the petitioners indeed were discriminated in the matter of conferment of work charge status as well as regularization vis-a-vis similarly situated persons by the appellants."::: Downloaded on - 23/09/2025 21:28:14 :::CIS
- 61 - 2025:HHC:33209
72. In CWPOA No. 3562 of 2019, titled as Sh. Sant Ram and .
Anr. v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Others., decided on 6.9.2022, coordinate Bench of this Court has held as under:
10. The questions, thus, arises as to whether the petitioners have acquired any right to claim the work charge status or/and regularization?
11. As per the respondents, above noted projects were funded by World Bank to the extent of 80% and the share of the State Government in funding the project is to the extent of 20%. Be that as it may, the fact that these projects are government projects cannot be disputed.
12. Petitioners have been working in the projects for more than 16 years continuously. They definitely must have lost the chances of employment elsewhere. The longevity of projects and their objective has not come to an end. It is not the case of the respondents that the objective for which these projects were started has been achieved.
17. Indisputably, the State Government has resorted to the mode of recruitment through contract employment since long. It also cannot be denied that the State Government from time to time has formulated policies whereunder the employees initially employed on daily wage basis were conferred work charge status in the first instance and then regularized.
18. Initial recruitment of the petitioners was though under specific project, nevertheless, the project was for a specific purpose and object and was an initiative of the government itself. Merely, the funding of project to the larger extent was by the World Bank, it cannot be said that the project was alien to the State Government as it was under the aegis of State Government that the projects have worked.
19. Once the respondents had regularized the services of various other employees initially employed under the projects, ::: Downloaded on - 23/09/2025 21:28:14 :::CIS
- 62 - 2025:HHC:33209 the petitioners could not be singled out to be discriminated.
The State Government had regularized the services of the .
employees working in special projects like Sarv Siksha Abhiyan, subsequently converted into District Primary Education Programme and Rashtriya Madhayamik Siksha Abhiyan and Samagar Siksha Abhiyan etc.
20. The State Government has to act as a model employer in a welfare State. It cannot have different yardstick for different persons. Conceptually, the executive 21 authorities have the onerous duty to work for the benefit of the public at large. As far as the mode and manner in which the Government has to achieve its purpose is to be chosen by the Government itself, however, with caveat that the same cannot be irrational, unreasonable or arbitrary. In a State where rule of law prevails, the Government is no exception. Right of equality being one of the fundamental traits of the Constitution, the same cannot be denied at the whims and fencies of the authorities.
21. Thus in view of the above discussion, there is no hesitation to hold that the petitioners have acquired a right for grant of work charge status or/and regularization by application of principle of legitimate expectations and such rights are to be conferred upon them on the same parameter on which other employees of the State government have been conferred with such benefits.
22. In result, the petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to grant the work charge status to the petitioners on completion of eight years of continuous 22 daily wage service commencing from 01.01.1997 and further to regularize their services with all consequential benefits at par with similarly situated persons in other departments of the State government. However, it is clarified that the petitioners are held entitled for monetary benefits only for three years from the date immediately preceding the date of filing of ::: Downloaded on - 23/09/2025 21:28:14 :::CIS
- 63 - 2025:HHC:33209 the petition. Petition is accordingly disposed of, so also, the pending applications, if any."
.
73. In CWP No. 3743 of 2021, titled as Vikas Gupta and Others v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Others., decided on 11.9.2022 (alongwith connected matters), which has been further upheld upto the Hon'ble Apex Court, coordinate Bench of this Court has held as under:
"25. Indisputably, the State Government has resorted to the mode of recruitment through contract employment since long. The contract employees have been regularized after putting in certain years of continuous service, as noticed above. The initial recruitment of the petitioners was though under a specific project, nevertheless, the project was for a laudable object to spread education in masses as an initiative of the Government itself. Merely the funding of project to larger extent was by the Central Government, it cannot be said the project was alien to the State Government as it was under the aegis of the State Government that the projects have worked. Importantly, the project that commenced about 25 years back is still in operation. The HPSES has been created to run the project in question as well as other related projects. It is not the case of respondents that the project or consequent creation of HPSES was for a limited period or purpose. Even the State Government never had any illusion about the continuance of projects being managed by HPSES. It will be gainful to extract a passage from the Minutes of Meeting To Review the Progress of Absorption of Engineering Staff Engaged Under SSA under the Chairmanship of the Chief Secretary held on 27.8.2020."Chairman asked Secretary (Education) to explore the possibility of Engineering wing and regularizing the services of all employees of the Society in the Society itself as Samagra Shiksha has to be implemented and for implementation of new education policy, services of ::: Downloaded on - 23/09/2025 21:28:14 :::CIS
- 64 - 2025:HHC:33209 these employees would be required. There will not be any burden on the Society as these employees are being paid the .
regular salary at par with their counterparts in the departments. If these employees are placed in some other department, they would move to the department and other employees will have to be inducted which will be a continuing cycle. He has pointed out that at present salary is being claimed 41 under the project from the Government of India and Government of H.P. in the ratio of 90:10, whereas these employees are inducted in some other department, complete burden will fall on the State Government. He further suggested that if services of these employees are regularised in the Society then Samagra Shiksha Programme will run smoothly and will also help in implementing New Education Policy in the State for which these employees have attained expertise". It becomes evident from above noticed facts that the project in which the petitioners were employed were not temporary in nature by any stretch of imagination. The continuity of the project for more than 25 years as also the purpose sought to be achieved through such project clearly implies that the same is necessitated by inescapable obligations vis-à-vis spread of education in the mass.
26. The State Government has to act as a model employer in a welfare State. It cannot have different yardstick for different persons. Conceptually, the executive authorities have the onerous duty to work for the benefit of the public at large. As far as the mode and manner in which the Government has to achieve its purpose is to be chosen by the Government itself, however, with caveat that the same cannot be irrational, unreasonable or arbitrary. In a State where rule of law prevails, the Government is no exception. Right of equality being one of the fundamental traits of the Constitution, the same cannot be denied at the whims and fencies of the authorities.::: Downloaded on - 23/09/2025 21:28:14 :::CIS
- 65 - 2025:HHC:33209
29. It can also be noticed from the admitted facts of the case that the petitioners had fallen in circumstances which had .
inculcated a legitimate expectation in them that their services would be regularized at par with the other Government employees and such expectation in the given facts cannot be termed as unreasonable or excessive. In my considered view the evident conduct of the respondents amount of denial of a legitimate expectation of petitioners and thus, leads to the violation of Article 14 of the Constitution.
30. Accordingly, in view of the observations and analysis made hereinabove, all the writ petitions are allowed and the respondents are directed to regularize the services of the petitioners from the date when they have completed eight years of service with all consequential benefits within a period of three months from today. However, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the financial benefits, if any, shall be permissible to the petitioners only for a period of three years immediately preceding the filing of these petitions. The regularization orders of the petitioners dated 16.12.2020 are held illegal and arbitrary and hence quashed to the extent these contains the condition to the effect that the regular employment of petitioners will be co-terminus with the existence of HPSES.
The State Government shall remain under direction to provide continuous regular employment to petitioners till their respective dates of superannuation in accordance with law, unless petitioners render themselves incapable for such benefit under relevant conduct rules.
74. Reliance is placed on judgment dated 8.10.2024, passed in CWP No. 5068 of 2013, titled as Anita Parihar and Others v.
State of Himachal Pradesh and Others., which has been affirmed upto the Hon'ble Apex Court, coordinate Bench of this Court has held as under:::: Downloaded on - 23/09/2025 21:28:14 :::CIS
- 66 - 2025:HHC:33209 "3. Vide office order dated 19.3.2005 the services of the petitioners were placed at the disposal of the Milch Live Stock .
Improvement Society (for short "MLIS") by the Deputy Commission- cum-C.E.O., DRDA. Apart from the petitioners certain other employees were also sent to work with the society.
8. Another fact which cannot be lost sight is that as per the case set up by the respondents themselves, the services of the petitioners were handed over to the Society in 2005 by executing a Memorandum of Understanding on 11.1.2005. In case the services of the petitioners had already been handed over to the Society on 11.1.2005 in terms of Memorandum of Understanding, then where was the requirement of having subsequently issued office order dated 19.3.2005, whereby the services of the petitioners along with certain other persons were again placed at the disposal of MLIS, respondent No. 3 herein. This action falsifies the defence put forth by the respondents. It is not the case of the respondents that in case the petitioners are their employees, then they are not entitled to the regularization of their services in terms of the instructions issued by the Government on 9.9.2008, but the only case is that the petitioners are the employees of respondent No. 3, Society and not of the DRDA. The petitioners have produced sufficient material on record to establish that persons who were similarly situated like that of the petitioners have in fact been regularized, which averments have not been specifically denied by the respondents and thus are deemed to be admitted.
9. The petitioners have rendered more than 12 to 20 years of services and the action of the respondents in not regularizing their services is arbitrary. It is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. It also amounts of unfair labour practice. The respondents-State cannot be permitted to exploit the petitioners and similarly situate persons by keeping them on contract basis for more than a decade.::: Downloaded on - 23/09/2025 21:28:14 :::CIS
- 67 - 2025:HHC:33209
12. Accordingly, in view of the observations and analysis made herein above, the writ petition is allowed and the respondents .
are directed to regularize the services of the petitioners from the date when they have completed eight years of service with all consequential benefits within a period of three months from today. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. No orders as to costs."
75. Learned Advocate General submitted that the services of the petitioners were temporary and co-terminus with the project, especially in view of the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this court in Rita Devi v. State of Himachal Pradesh (CWP No. 658 of 2009) 2005 STPL 8785 HP and by Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Himachal Pradesh (through the Secretary Agriculture to the Government of Himachal Pradesh v. Nodha Ram and Others 1998 SCC (L&S) 478.
76. Admittedly, in the afore case, Hon'ble Apex Court has held that no vested right can be created in temporary employment and State cannot be directed to regularise their services in the absence of any existing vacancies but in the case before Hon'ble Apex Court, petitioners were engaged on daily wages on muster roll basis under a particular scheme, however in the cases at hand, respondent-State formed a society and got it registered under Himachal Pradesh Horticulture Development Society and its headquarters is the office of Himachal Pradesh Horticulture Produce Marketing and Processing Corporation Ltd. (A State Undertaking). Copy of certificate of registration alongwith Memorandum of Association and Rules and ::: Downloaded on - 23/09/2025 21:28:14 :::CIS
- 68 - 2025:HHC:33209 Regulations as taken note herein above, clearly reveals that management of society is controlled by the senior officers of the .
government i.e. Additional Chief Secretary (Horticulture) H.P. is the Chairperson of the Society and Additional Chief Secretary (Finance) H.P. and Principal Secretary (Printing & Stationery) H.P. and M.D. HPMC are the Member Secretaries. In all, 16 members are all functionaries of the Government of Himachal Pradesh. Power and Functions of the Governing Council clearly reveal that Government of Himachal Pradesh may appoint any one or more persons to review the work and progress of the Society and to hold inquiries into the affairs thereof and to report thereon in such manner as the State Government may stipulate. Most importantly, as per Memorandum of Association, Government of Himachal Pradesh, at any time, may issue directives on the matter of policy to the Society and society shall be bound to comply with such directives. As per Rule 28 (i), whatever staff is hired / recruited by the Society even as temporary or daily wages basis would be with the approval of State Government. Most importantly, as per Rules and Regulations of the society, staff hired /recruited would be Society's staff and shall belong to the Society only but in case of dissolution, the services of the employees of the Society would stand automatically dispensed with.
77. Though an attempt has been made to create an impression that petitioner herein as well as other similarly situate ::: Downloaded on - 23/09/2025 21:28:14 :::CIS
- 69 - 2025:HHC:33209 pensions have been recruited by the society and State Government has nothing to do in the matter, but having taken note of composition, its .
rules and regulations, this Court has no hesitation to conclude that work of Horticulture Department as well as its subsidiaries are being executed through societies with a view to deny the tag of being government employee as well as permanency, respondents very smartly formed society for the execution of work of Government and thereafter appointed number of technical /nontechnical persons, who have been working for so many years, but now, they have been denied regularisation on the ground that they were not employees of the government. Since petitioners, who though have been employed in the society, but have been actually performing duties in the project of the Government, this Court is not persuaded to accept the contention of State that they are not government employees. Once petitioners herein are working for the advancement of policy of the State Government and for betterment of the Horticulture in the State of Himachal Pradesh through Horticulture department, this Court is persuaded to concluded that society formed in the name of Himachal Pradesh Horticulture Development Society is camouflage and in actual, petitioners have been engaged for the execution of the work of horticulture department, but with a view to deny regularisation, they have been shown to be employees of the society. In Kapila Hingorani case (supra), doctrine of piercing/lifting the corporate veil has been ::: Downloaded on - 23/09/2025 21:28:14 :::CIS
- 70 - 2025:HHC:33209 explained. Corporate veil in certain situations can be pierced or lifted, whenever a corporate entity is abused for an unjust and .
inequitable purpose, the Court would not hesitate to lift the veil and look into the realities so as to identify the persons who are guilty and liable.
78. It also came to be argued at the behest of the learned Advocate General that courts while passing various judgments as detailed herein above, failed to take note of judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Nodha Ram (supra), wherein it while setting aside the order passed by the Division Bench ordered that no vested right can be created in temporary employment and that State cannot be directed to regularize in the absence of any existing vacancies.
79. While referring to judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in LPA No. 153 of 2023, titled as State of Himachal Pradesh and Others .v. Sant Ram and Anr., wherein Division Bench of this Court while allowing the appeal Consequently, in view of the above, curred with the learned Single Judge in CWPOA No. 3562 of 2019, Sant Ram and Anr. v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Others, which has been further upheld by Hon'ble Apex Court on 06.02.2025, Mr. Rattan argued that afore judgment is in clear departure of earlier authority by this Court in Rita Devi and Jaidev v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors (2017 STPL 2554 HP). He further submitted that High Court of Himachal Pradesh relying on ::: Downloaded on - 23/09/2025 21:28:14 :::CIS
- 71 - 2025:HHC:33209 Delhi Development Horticulture Employee's Union v. Delhi Administration (AIR 1992 SC 789), Surendra Kumar Sharma v.
.
Vikas Adhikari (2003) 5 SCC 12 and MD UP Land Development Corporation v. Amar Singh (2003) 5 SCC 388, held that it is the settled position of law that when a workman is engaged against a particular project/scheme and his services come to an end upon the completion of that project/scheme, such disengagement is lawful and does not warrant further interference. He further argued that in Rita Devi (supra), this Court held that employment under a project or society ends with project's closure and thereafter, no claim for regularisation or compassionate appointment can survive. In the afore case, petitioner's late husband was engaged as a daily wager in Indo German Changer Project, which was funded externally and implemented through a registered society and all the posts were abolished once the project closed. He further placed reliance upon jurisdiction passed this Court in State of Himachal Pradesh v.
Ashwani Kumar and Anr. (1996) 1 SCC 773 and Mohd. Abdul Kadir and Anr. v. Director-General of Police, Assam and Ors (2009) 6 SCC 611, to state that no vested right is created in favour of the workman in temporary employment. While referring to judgment passed in Jaidev (supra), learned Advocate General argued that learned Single Judge observed that this is not a case where petitioner was engaged by the State, rather he was engaged by society and as ::: Downloaded on - 23/09/2025 21:28:14 :::CIS
- 72 - 2025:HHC:33209 such, has no vested right to seek regularisation in terms of policy of Government framed by the State of Himachal Pradesh. While referring .
to afore judgments, Mr. Rattan argued that since in all the judgments pressed into service by the petitioner, as has been taken note herein above, coordinate Benches failed to take note of judgments as have been taken note herein above., rule of per-incuriam would come into play.
80. Before ascertaining correctness of the aforesaid submissions made by learned Advocate General, it would be apt to elaborate upon rule of Per-incuriam as established by the Hon'ble Apex Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, referring to various precedents, upheld the rule of per incuriam in Indore Development Authority v. Shailendra (2018) SCC 3 412 as follows:
"206. The concept of "per incuriam" signifies those decisions rendered in ignorance or forgetfulness of some inconsistent statutory provisions, or of some authority binding on the court concerned. In other words, the concept means that a given decision is in disregard of the previous decisions of the court itself, or that it was rendered in ignorance of the terms of an applicable statute or of a rule having the force of law."
81. In Fuerst Day Lawson Ltd. v. Jindal Exports Ltd. (2001 6 SCC 356), the Court discussed when a judgment can be held per incuriam:
"A prior decision of the Supreme Court on identical facts and lave binds the Court on the same points of law in a later case.::: Downloaded on - 23/09/2025 21:28:14 :::CIS
- 73 - 2025:HHC:33209 In exceptional instances, where by obvious inadvertence or oversight a judgment fails to notice a plain statutory provision .
or obligatory authority running counter to the reasoning and result reached, the principle of per incuriam may apply. Unless it is a glaring case of obtrusive omission, it is not desirable to depend on the principle of judgment 'per incuriam'. It has to be shown that some part of the decision was based on a reasoning which was demonstrably wrong, for applying the principle of per incuriam."
82. The Constitutional Bench in M/s Bajaj Alliance General v. Rambina Devi (Civil Appeal no. 841 of 2018) laid down the following principles (not exhaustive):
(i) A decision is per incuriam only when the overlooked statutory provision or legal precedent is central to the legal issue in question and might have led to a different outcome if those overlooked provisions were considered. It must be an inconsistent provision and a glaring case of obtrusive omission.
(ii) The doctrine of per incuriam applies strictly to the ratio decidendi and does not apply to obiter dicta
(iii) If a court doubts the correctness of a precedent, the appropriate step is to either follow the decision or refer it to a larger Bench for reconsideration.
(iv) It has to be shown that some part of the decision was based on a reasoning which was demonstrably wrong, for applying the principle of per incuriam. In exceptional instances, where by obvious inadvertence or oversight, a judgment fails to notice a plain statutory provision or obligatory authority running counter to the reasoning and result reached, the principle of per incuriam may apply."
83. Facts, if any, of Nodha Ram case (supra) reveals that respondents therein were engaged on daily wage on muster-roll basis in Central Scheme and were paid out of the funds provided by the ::: Downloaded on - 23/09/2025 21:28:14 :::CIS
- 74 - 2025:HHC:33209 Central Government. Scheme was closed and services of Nodha Ram were dispensed with. This Court passed interim direction to reengage .
them. Respondent-State filed Special leave Petition, wherein Hon'ble Apex Court having taken note of the fact that project is complete and there is non-availability of funds observed that employees have to go along with its closure and High court was not right to give direction to regularize them in other place, however, facts of the present cases are totally different. Petitioners herein cannot be equated with employees who were employed in project for specific project.
r Petitioners here have been shown to be employees of society owned controlled and financed by the state government but as has been observed herein above, society has been purposely created with a view to avoid a situation of regular person like petitioners. World bank entered into agreement for twenty years, which was to end in the year 2036 and not in year 2024. State just to avoid the benefit which otherwise has to flow in favour of the petitioners in terms of notification issued by State Government with respect to regularisation of employees from time to time and further with a view to avoid regularisation of the petitioner in view of the law laid down by this Court in catena of judgments as taken note herein above, has attempted to create facade of the society , which is nothing but limb of State of Himachal Pradesh. If the composition is seen, it is controlled and managed by the senior officers of the Government. Facts of the present case are totally different from ::: Downloaded on - 23/09/2025 21:28:14 :::CIS
- 75 - 2025:HHC:33209 the facts of Nodha Ram's case (supra), as such judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Nodha Ram, cannot be said to be a binding .
precedent in the present facts and circumstances of the case since it has been proved on record by the petitioner that society is owned and controlled by the State of Himachal Pradesh registered under the Himachal Pradesh Societies Registration Act, 2006. Moreover in other societies of Government, pursuant to judgment passed by this Court, Government of its own has regularized the services of employees recruited through society after completion of requisite period as per notification issued by the State Government for regularisation from time to time.
84. Basically the meaning of "Incuria" literally means "carelessness" in practice "per-incuriam" appears to mean "per ignoratium". In this regard it is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that it is settled law of the land that little bit difference in the case makes lot of difference in a precedential value of decision. The law as cited by the petitioners before this Hon'ble Court is basically with regard to the law on the aspect of persons working in a society against a project for a long period. The facts in the Nodha Ram case were slightly different because it nowhere appears in the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Nodha Ram case that the petitioners who were employed or whose services were engaged on daily wages basis for a central scheme were either employee of a society or not. In ::: Downloaded on - 23/09/2025 21:28:14 :::CIS
- 76 - 2025:HHC:33209 the law as cited by the petitioners as well as the facts of the present case the petitioners before this Hon'ble Court have been either .
employed through proper selection done by issuance of advertisement either by the Project director, HP Horticulture Development Society or by Director of Horticulture and the appointment letters have been also issued in favour of the petitioners either by the Project Director, H.P. Horticulture Development Society or by the Director of Horticulture.
Further as per the Rules & Regulation the petitioners have been appointed after being approved by the State Government. Therefore the argument being raised that once the project comes to an end the services of the petitioners also to come to end are not attracted in the present case.
85. Hon'ble Apex Court in Union of India & Ors. Vs. Major Bahadur Singh (2006) 1 SCC 368, held that circumstantial flexibility, one additional or different fact may make a word of difference between conclusion of two cases. Hon'ble Apex Court in the afore judgment held that Court should not place reliance of decision without discussion as to how the factual situation fits in with the fact situation of the decision on which reliance is placed. Observations of the Court are neither to be read as Euclid's theorems nor as provisions of statute and cannot be read out of their context, rather observation must be read in the context in which they appeared to have been made. Close scrutiny of the facts of the case in Nodha Ram's case as well as other ::: Downloaded on - 23/09/2025 21:28:14 :::CIS
- 77 - 2025:HHC:33209 cases relied upon by the learned Advocate General, would demonstrate that they were daily wages persons appointed for a particular work .
against a scheme, whereas in the present case the petitioners are employees of the society wholly owned and controlled by the State and even as per Rule 28, their services have to go alongwith the society.
Hence, by no stretch of imagination, judgment cited by the petitioners can be said to be per-incuriam, as has been attempted to be argued by the learned Advocate General.
86. Even otherwise, argument advanced by learned Advocate General that judgment cited by the petitioners are per-incuriam in view of judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Nodha Ram's case is liable to be rejected for the reason that law cited by learned Advocate General with regard to per-incuriam, especially Sundeep Kumar Bafna v. State of Maharasthra & Anr (2014) 16 SCC 623, if perused in its entirety, would demonstrate that a decision or a judgment can be said to be per-incuriam, if it is not possible to reconcile its ratio with the previously pronounced judgments of a co-
equal or larger bench or if the decision of High Court is not in consonance with the view of the Hon'ble Apex Court. To come to this conclusion what is important is to look into the facts of the case, which in the present case as well as law cited by the petitioners before this Court are totally different from the facts as were there in Nodha Ram's case. Leaving everything aside, precedents promote consistency ::: Downloaded on - 23/09/2025 21:28:14 :::CIS
- 78 - 2025:HHC:33209 and stability in law, however they can become outdated as society evolves. The courts are to lift the corporate veil, especially in view of .
the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP(C) No. 5580 of 2024, titled as Jagoo v. Union of India and Ors. and CA No. 8558 of 2018, titled as Dharam Singh and Ors. v. State of UP and Ors., whereby Hon'ble Apex Court has come heavily upon the nature of employment being done by the respectable states on outsource basis.
Practice of offering employment on outsource basis has been deprecated in the afore cases.
87. Recently this Court in a bunch of petitions in Shubash Kumar and ors. vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and anr, CWP No.10354 of 2023 alongwith connected matters decided on 01.09.2025 held Computer Operators engaged in Development Block, who were claimed to be engaged through MGNREGA by respondent state, entitled to be regularized taking note of the fact that they have been working for so many years. Relevant paras are reproduced as under: ( paras 31 to 36)
31. In Bhupendra Nath Hazarika and another vs. State of Assam and others (2013) 2 SCC 516, Hon'ble Apex Court, while laying emphasis on the role of the State as a model employer observed that a sense of calm sensibility and concerned sincerity should be reflected in every step and atmosphere of trust has to prevail and when the employees are absolutely sure that their trust shall not be betrayed and they shall be treated with dignified fairness then only the concept of good governance can be concretized.
::: Downloaded on - 23/09/2025 21:28:14 :::CIS- 79 - 2025:HHC:33209
32. Leaving everything aside, once it is not in dispute that w.e.f. 2017, petitioners have been in receipt of regular pay scales as .
have been received by regularly appointed Computer Operators, coupled with the fact that there is nothing in the reply suggestive of the fact that scheme under which petitioners were appointed has closed, prayer made on behalf of the petitioners for regularization deserves to be allowed.
33. It is none of the case of the respondents that at the time of their appointment, may be on contract basis, petitioners were not in possession of the requite qualifications for the post of Computer Operators, which has been otherwise provided under Common Recruitment & Promotion Rules, 2012. If it is so, this Court sees no justification to accept the stand of the respondents that initial appointment of the petitioners against the post of Computer Operators was not made through Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission or by the Himachal Pradesh Rajya Chayan Aayog.
34. Though, even at that stage, option was very much available to the respondents to fill up such posts, perhaps on contract basis, through the Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission or by the Himachal Pradesh Rajya Chayan Aayog, but once respondents themselves decided to engage petitioners and other similar situated persons of their own by creating 93 posts, they cannot be permitted at this stage to contend that petitioners were not appointed against the sanctioned posts.
35. At this stage, it would be also apt to take note of recent judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.8558 of 2018, titled Dharam Singh and others vs. State of U.P and another, wherein it has been held as under:-
"17. Before concluding, we think it necessary to recall that the State (here referring to both the Union and the State governments) is not a mere market participant but a constitutional employer. It cannot balance budgets on the backs of those who perform the most basic and recurring ::: Downloaded on - 23/09/2025 21:28:14 :::CIS
- 80 - 2025:HHC:33209 public functions. Where work recurs day after day and year after year, the establishment must reflect that reality .
in its sanctioned strength and engagement practices. The longterm extraction of regular labour under temporary labels corrodes confidence in public administration and offends the promise of equal protection. Financial stringency certainly has a place in public policy, but it is not a talisman that overrides fairness, reason and the duty to organise work on lawful lines.
18. Moreover, it must necessarily be noted that "ad-
hocism" thrives where administration is opaque. The State Departments must keep and produce accurate establishment registers, muster rolls and outsourcing arrangements, and they must explain, with evidence, why they prefer precarious engagement over sanctioned posts where the work is perennial. If "constraint" is invoked, the record should show what alternatives were considered, why similarly placed workers were treated differently, and how the chosen course aligns with Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Sensitivity to the human consequences of prolonged insecurity is not sentimentality. It is a constitutional discipline that should inform every decision affecting those who keep public offices running.
19. Having regard to the long, undisputed service of the appellants, the admitted perennial nature of their duties, and the material indicating vacancies and comparator regularizations, we issue the following directions:
i. Regularization and creation of Supernumerary posts: All appellants shall stand regularized with effect from 24.04.2002, the date on which the High Court directed a fresh recommendation by the Commission and a fresh decision by the State on sanctioning posts for the appellants. For this purpose, the State and the successor establishment ::: Downloaded on - 23/09/2025 21:28:14 :::CIS
- 81 - 2025:HHC:33209 (U.P. Education Services Selection Commission) shall create supernumerary posts in the corresponding .
cadres, Class-III (Driver or equivalent) and Class-IV (Peon/Attendant/Guard or equivalent) without any caveats or preconditions. On regularization, each appellant shall be placed at not less than the minimum of the regular pay-scale for the post, with protection of last-drawn wages if higher and the appellants shall be entitled to the subsequent increments in the pay scale as per the pay grade. For seniority and promotion, service shall count from the date of regularization as given above.
ii. Financial consequences and arrears: Each appellant shall be paid as arrears the full difference between (a) the pay and admissible allowances at the minimum of the regular pay-level for the post from time to time, and (b) the amounts actually paid, for the period from 24.04.2002 until the date of regularization /retirement/death, as the case may be.
Amounts already paid under previous interim directions shall be so adjusted. The net arrears shall be released within three months and if in default, the unpaid amount shall carry compound interest at 6% per annum from the date of default until payment. iii. Retired appellants: Any appellant who has already retired shall be granted regularization with effect from 24.04.2002 until the date of superannuation for pay fixation, arrears under clause
(ii), and recalculation of pension, gratuity and other terminal dues. The revised pension and terminal dues shall be paid within three months of this Judgement.
iv. Deceased appellants: In the case of Appellant No. 5 and any other appellant who has died during ::: Downloaded on - 23/09/2025 21:28:14 :::CIS
- 82 - 2025:HHC:33209 pendency, his/her legal representatives on record shall be paid the arrears under clause (ii) up to the .
date of death, together with all terminal/retiral dues recalculated consistently with clause (i), within three months of this Judgement.
v. Compliance affidavit: The Principal Secretary, Higher Education Department, Government of Uttar Pradesh, or the Secretary of the U.P. Education Services Selection Commission or the prevalent competent authority, shall file an affidavit of compliance before this Court within four months of this Judgement.
20. We have framed these directions comprehensively because, case after case, orders of this Court in such matters have been met with fresh technicalities, rolling "reconsiderations," and administrative drift which further prolongs the insecurity for those who have already laboured for years on daily wages. Therefore, we have learned that Justice in such cases cannot rest on simpliciter directions, but it demands imposition of clear duties, fixed timelines, and verifiable compliance. As a constitutional employer, the State is held to a higher standard and therefore it must organise its perennial workers on a sanctioned footing, create a budget for lawful engagement, and implement judicial directions in letter and spirit. Delay to follow these obligations is not mere negligence but rather it is a conscious method of denial that erodes livelihoods and dignity for these workers. The operative scheme we have set here comprising of creation of supernumerary posts, full regularization, subsequent financial benefits, and a sworn affidavit of compliance, is therefore a pathway designed to convert rights into outcomes and to reaffirm that fairness in engagement and transparency in administration are not matters of grace, ::: Downloaded on - 23/09/2025 21:28:14 :::CIS
- 83 - 2025:HHC:33209 but obligations under Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India".
.
36. Though, in afore case, Hon'ble Apex Court had an occasion to deal with the case of outsourced employee, but if the afore judgment is read in its entirety, it clearly suggests that long- term extraction of regular labour under temporary labels cannot be permitted as it corrodes public confidence. Though, Hon'ble Apex Court in afore judgment held that Financial stringency certainly has a place in public policy, but it is not a talisman that overrides fairness, reason, and the duty to organize work on lawful lines."
88. Coordinate Bench of this Court in CWPOA No. 6612 of 2019, titled as Manoj Kumar Sharma and Ors. v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors., decided on 17.9.2025, wherein computer teachers working for more than two decades were denied regularization on the ground that they were employed by independent agencies, held as under:
"24. Coming to the facts of the instant case, it is true that the State Government has created a cadre of PGT for computer education. However, it is equally true that for one reason or the other, the long services of the petitioners have not received any recognition. As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dharam Singh (supra), the writ Court is not precluded from examining the administrative action, where it amounts to omission in discharge of public function in accordance with Constitutional Mandate.
25. The fact that the State Government had initiated computer education in all the GSSS in the State cannot be said to be without objective. Computer education indisputably is core of present educational curriculum. It forms integral part of state ::: Downloaded on - 23/09/2025 21:28:14 :::CIS
- 84 - 2025:HHC:33209 governance. Thus, it is also an important part and parcel of the discharge of public function.
.
26. In this context, the mere fact that the State had taken a decision to outsource the infrastructure and manpower could have relevance, as a temporary measure only to negotiate the immediate requirements, but cannot be justified as a permanent feature in the teeth of what has been held in Dharam Singh and Jaggo (supra).
27. The matter can be viewed from another angle. The case of the petitioners can be viewed in the context of ever evolving concept of legitimate expectations, which now in Indian conditions need not necessarily be confined to be followed by a state promise. In Noida Entrepreneurs Association Noida & others vs. Noida & others (2011) 6 SCC 508 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that a decision taken in an arbitrary manner contradicts the principle of legitimate expectation. An authority is under legal obligations to exercise the powers reasonably and in good faith to effectuate the purpose for which the powers stood conferred.
28. In this context, "in good faith" means "for legitimate reasons". It must be exercised bonafide for the purpose and for none other. The principle has been followed in a later judgment by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Jharkhand & others vs. Brahmaputra Metallic Ltd. (2023) 10 SCC 634 by holding that the doctrine of substantive legitimate expectation is one of the ways in which the guarantee of non-arbitrariness enshrined under Article 14 finds concrete expression.
29. Once the petitioners had rendered sufficient long service, in furtherance of fulfillment of State obligation, it was the responsibility and obligation of the State to have taken a decision to take over or regularize the services of the petitioners, who admittedly had the required qualification and sufficient long experience. In the peculiar circumstances, where the situation has turned irreversible for the petitioners, the State ::: Downloaded on - 23/09/2025 21:28:14 :::CIS
- 85 - 2025:HHC:33209 Government will not be justified merely by holding that it had framed R&P Rules and some relaxation had been made in order .
to accommodate the petitioners and similarly situated persons.
It would only be a lip service. The net result is that the petitioners having been rendered overage, they will not be able to compete in open competition.
30. The petitioners are agitating for their rights since long. In the peculiar facts of the case, the inaction of the State Government, in my considered view can be taken cognizance of in exercise of writ jurisdiction.
31. As noticed earlier also while disposing of LPA No. 352 of 2012 and other connected matter a Division Bench of this Court had required the State Government to explore the possibility of framing a policy vide judgment dated 6.5.2014, however, even after lapse of about eleven years, nothing concrete has been done save and except amending the service rules that too without having practically come to the rescue of petitioners.
32. The distinction being drawn by the respondents between the category of petitions with that of teachers regularized after initial appointments in PAT, GVU and PTA transfer schemes is also baseless and clearly manifests discrimination. The cardinal purpose behind regularizing the services of above categories was linked with permanency attached with nature of their services. The long services rendered by the petitioners coupled with creation of more than a thousand posts clearly establishes the permanent nature of posts against which the petitioners have now been working for more than two decades. Merely because their engagement has been through outsourced agencies, which also have changed hands from time to time, the substance of their having worked in furtherance of State obligation cannot be undermined.
33. Thus, keeping in view, the entire above addressed facts and circumstances, the petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to regularize the services of petitioners at par with the ::: Downloaded on - 23/09/2025 21:28:14 :::CIS
- 86 - 2025:HHC:33209 PAT, GVU and PTA categories at least from the date of filing of instant petition by completing the entire exercise within twelve .
weeks from receipt of copy of this judgment. The petitioners shall also be entitled to all consequential benefits.
89. Consequently, in view of the detailed discussion made herein above as well as law taken into consideration, present petitions are allowed and respondents are directed to regularize the contractual services of the petitioners on the post they were offered engagement in the Department of Horticulture after completion of two years contractual service in terms of regularisation policy framed by the Government of Himachal Pradesh.
90. In the aforesaid terms, present petitions are disposed of alongwith pending applications, if any.
September 23, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma),
Judge
(manjit)
::: Downloaded on - 23/09/2025 21:28:14 :::CIS