DISHA KUMARI vs THE STATE OF HP AND ANOTHER

2025:HHC:37155
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
High Court of H.P.
CWP No.7725 of 2026
Reserved on 13.07.2026
Decided on: 31.07.2026
Uploaded on 31.07.2026.
Ms. Disha Kumari … Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and another … Respondents
Coram
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge.
1
Whether approved for reporting? Yes
____________________________________________________ _
For the petitioner: Ms.Shikha Chauhan, Advocate.
For the respondents: Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, Additional Advocate
General, for respondent No.1.
Mr. V.S. Rathore, Advocate, for respondent
No.2.
Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge
By way of this petition, the petitioner has, inter alia ,
prayed for the following reliefs:-
“ i) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to
regularize the services of the petitioner w.e.f. 25-09-2019
along with all consequential benefits.
ii) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to
pay arrears of salary and other financial benefits to the
petitioner as per the regular pay scale from 25-09-2019 .”
2. The case of the petitioner is that vide advertisement
dated 25.08.2017 (Annexure P-1), respondent No.2 invited
applications for the post of Project Manager in the e-National
Agricultural Market (e-NAM) on contract basis. The petitioner being
eligible to apply for the said post in terms of the advertisement,
submitted her application for consideration. She appeared before the
Expert Committee which was constituted for selecting the candidates
1
Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?


::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2026 21:07:49 :::CIS

2
on 25.09.2017 along with 11 other applicants. On the basis of her
High Court of H.P.
performance before the Selection Committee, the petitioner was
offered appointment of e-NAM Project Manager on contract basis
vide Annexure P-3, i.e. order dated 25.09.2017. According to the
petitioner, she joined the service as such on contract basis and since
then is performing her duties diligently without any complaint. It is
further her case that after completion of two years on contract basis,
she approached the Authorities for regularization of her services,
but no response was received from the respondents. The petitioner
has also filed a representation on 26.02.2021, requesting for her
regularization. Vide Annexure P-6 dated 02.07.2024, a
communication was sent by Secretary, Agriculture to the
Government of Himachal Pradesh-cum-Chairman HPSAMB, Member
Service Committee to the Managing Director of Himachal Pradesh
State Agriculture Marketing Board on the subject ‘Regularization of
contractual services of Smt. Disha Gupta, Project Manager (E-NAM)
in HP State Agricultural Marketing Board’, in which, it was stated
that the matter with reference to letter dated 24.06.2024 was
examined and it was observed therein that the regularization orders
in respect of the petitioner, who was the Project Manager, may be
issued with prospective effect immediately and besides this, the
process of framing the Recruitment & Promotion Rules (R&P Rules)
may also be initiated. As even after this communication, nothing was
being done by the Department, hence the petitioner has approached
::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2026 21:07:49 :::CIS

3
this Court.
High Court of H.P.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the
petitioner was appointed against the post of Project Manager after
undergoing a selection process, in which, other eligible persons also
participated. She submitted that engagement of the petitioner was
not through a back door entry, but by way of an open selection
process. The petitioner was appointed against the post as she
fulfilled the requisite eligibility criteria and was recommended for
selection by the Expert Committee/Selection Committee. Learned
counsel referred to Annexure P-4, appended with the petition and
submitted that perusal thereof would demonstrate as to what was
the reason for the sanction of the post of Project Manager in the e-
NAM Project, which led to the appointment of the petitioner against
the said post. She submitted that the petitioner was engaged in the
Market Board, which is wholly owned and controlled by the State
Government. She submitted that the Policies of the State
Government with regard to the regularization of the services of
persons engaged on contract basis are applicable and binding upon
the said respondent also. In this backdrop, the act of the Board of
not regularizing the services of the petitioner, more so in light of
communication (Annexure P-6), is totally unsustainable in law.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for Board,
by referring to its reply, submitted that the engagement of the
petitioner against the post of Project Manager was on contract basis,
::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2026 21:07:49 :::CIS

4
and the respondents were honouring the terms and conditions, on
High Court of H.P.
the basis of which she was engaged. He submitted that no assurance
of regularization of service was ever given to the petitioner, and
therefore, the contention of the petitioner that non-regularization of
her services was arbitrary, is totally bad in law. Learned Counsel
also drew the attention of the Court to the documents appended
with the reply filed by the respondent-Board and submitted that the
Service Committee of respondent No. 2, in its meeting held on
20.03.2024 with regard to the regularization of the contractual
service of Ms. Disha Kumari, decided to refer the matter to the
Finance Department for detailed examination as per Rules by the
Administrative Department. He submitted that thereafter, in terms of
Annexure R-5, a communication was received from Principal
Secretary (Finance) to Secretary (Agriculture) and respondent No. 2
to the effect that said parties were called upon to take further
necessary action in the matter as per decision taken in the meeting
of the Service Committee after obtaining the approval of the Board of
Directors of respondent No. 2 under intimation to the Finance
Department.
5. Learned Additional Advocate General submitted that
during the course of hearing of this petition, in light of certain
directions which were passed by the Court, the meeting of the
Service Committee of respondent No. 2 was convened on 28.01.2026,
in which the Committee resolved that the same was guided by the
::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2026 21:07:49 :::CIS

5
settled constitutional position that regularization is not and cannot
High Court of H.P.
be made a mode of recruitment and that an illegality, namely, an
appointment made de hors a sanctioned post, statutory Rules, or
constitutional scheme, cannot be regularized. He submitted that the
Committee had also taken note of the fact that mere continuation of
a contractual or temporary employee, including continuation under
interim orders, does not create any enforceable right of absorption or
regularization. He submitted that the Committee also took note that
the Statutory Policy underlying the Himachal Pradesh Recruitment
and Conditions of Service of Government Employees Act, 2024
confines service rule benefits to persons appointed on a regular
basis with an entitlement, if any, flowing from the date of
regularization, and further provides that service benefits already
extended for service other than regular service shall stand
withdrawn. He also submitted that in light of the stand so taken by
respondent No. 2, the petitioner was not entitled for any
regularization of her services.
6. In rejoinder, learned Counsel for the petitioner stated
that the petitioner had been performing her duties diligently since
the year 2017, when she was appointed against the post in question
and the pleas being raised for denying regularization to the
petitioner were not justified in law. She submitted that the
respondents cannot take the stand that the petitioner had not been
appointed as per service regulations, for the reason that it is not as if
::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2026 21:07:49 :::CIS

6
the petitioner was appointed through a back-door route. She
High Court of H.P.
submitted that the petitioner responded to a process of recruitment
initiated by respondent No. 2 and therefore, the contention of the
Department that the petitioner had no right of regularization was
not sustainable.
7. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have
also carefully gone through the pleadings as well as other documents
on record.
8. The facts, as have been mentioned hereinabove,
regarding engagement of the petitioner and further the respective
stand of the respondents denying regularization to the petitioner, are
not in dispute. It is a matter of record that the petitioner herein was
appointed against the post of Project Manager through a process
initiated by respondent No.2 and not through back-door entry. That
is to say, it is not as if one fine day, without any advertisement, or
without facing any Selection Committee, the petitioner was
appointed against the post of Project Manager.
9. The documents appended with the petition demonstrate
that the Managing Director of respondent No. 2 had initiated the
process justifying the post of Project Manager in the e-NAM project
and pursuant thereto, an advertisement was issued by respondent
No. 2 for appointment of a Project Manager, for which 12 candidates
applied. The candidates were subjected to an interview before a
Selection Committee and it was on the recommendations of the said
::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2026 21:07:49 :::CIS

7
Selection Committee, that the petitioner was appointed in the year
High Court of H.P.
2017 against the post in issue, on a contract basis.
10. Therefore, the contents of the minutes of meeting of
respondent No. 2 dated 30.06.2006 that the appointment of the
petitioner was an illegal appointment made de hors a sanctioned
post, statutory rules, or constitutional scheme, are perverse
observations and are not sustainable in law. The petitioner was
appointed on the recommendations of a Selection Committee
constituted by respondent No. 2. Therefore, in the light of this fact, it
does not behove respondent No. 2 to term the appointment of the
petitioner to be illegal, or an appointment de hors a sanctioned post,
statutory rules, or constitutional scheme.
11. As far as the issue of the Statutory Policy or Statutory
Scheme of Himachal Pradesh Recruitment and Condition of Service
of Government Employees Act, 2024, referred to in the said minutes
of the Board by respondent No. 2 is concerned, the observations
made on the basis of the coming into force of this Act, lose their
significance, for the reason that this Act has already been declared
as ultra vires to the Constitution of India by the Hon’ble Division
Bench of this Court in CWP No.3361 of 2025, titled Devinder Kumar
& others Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and another and
connected matters, decided on 25.04.2026. Further, it is a matter of
record that the Special Leave Petition preferred by the State against
the said judgment of the Hon’ble Division Bench in Devinder
::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2026 21:07:49 :::CIS

8
Kumar’s case (supra) has been dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme
High Court of H.P.
Court.
12. The petitioner having been appointed through a
transparent process against the post of Project Manager on contract
basis and the factum of her serving on contract basis for the last 9
years demonstrates that not only the appointment of the petitioner
was by following a process initiated for filling-up the post by
respondent No. 2 itself, but also that the post has the element of
permanency attached to it.
13. In fact, during the pendency of the present writ petition,
this Court had passed the following orders on 16.12.2025 and
02.01.2026:-
“ Order dated 16.12.2025
Careful perusal of communication dated 2nd July, 2024,
issued under the signatures of Joint Secretary
(Agriculture) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh,
reveals that direction already stands issued to the
Managing Director, Himachal Pradesh Agriculture
Marketing Board, Khalini, Shimla, to issue regularization
orders in respect of Smt. Disha Gupta, Project Manager
with prospective effect, but fact remains that till date,
neither regularization order has been issued nor R&P
Rules for the post in question have been finalized. Though,
reply filed by the respondents suggests that the matter is
still pending before Finance Department, but once
necessary direction already stands issued by the
competent authority to Managing Director, Himachal
Pradesh Agriculture Marketing Board to regularize the
::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2026 21:07:49 :::CIS

9
services of the petitioner herein, it is not understood that
High Court of H.P.
why and for what reason regularization order of the
petitioner has been not issued till date.
Learned counsel representing respondent No.2 prays for
and is granted ten days’ time to have instructions. In case
petitioner is otherwise eligible to be granted regularization
in terms of letter dated 2nd July, 2024, pendency of the
present petition shall not be bar for the respondents to do
the needful, rather order, if any, passed in that regard
shall be produced before this Court on the next date of
hearing, enabling this Court to pass appropriate order in
the instant proceedings.
List on 02.01.2026.”
“ Order dated 02.01.2026
“Pursuant to order dated 16.12.2025, Mr. Sanjay Joshi,
Deputy Director, Himachal Pradesh State Agriculture
Marketing Board has come present and placed on record
communication dated 26.12.2025 addressed to the
Secretary(Agriculture) to the Government of Himachal
Pradesh by the Managing Director of the respondent-
Corporation, praying therein to convene the meeting of the
Service Committee to consider the case of the petitioner for
regularization.
Though, it has been vehemently argued by learned
counsel for the petitioner that number of times meeting of
Service Committee has been convened, but for no
justifiable reason, case of the petitioner has been
considered. Be that as it may, this Court deems it
appropriate to direct that the meeting of Service Committee
be convened at the earliest, preferably within a period of
four weeks and thereafter, outcome of the same be placed
before this Court on or before the next date of hearing. List
::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2026 21:07:49 :::CIS

10
on 25.03.2026. ”
High Court of H.P.
A perusal of the said orders also demonstrates that this Court had
categorically observed in these orders that there was no justifiable
reason as to why the services of the petitioner were not being
regularized.
14. The Service Committee of the respondent-Board, which
met on 26.12.2025, decided as under:-
“ The Member Secretary extended gratitude to the
Chairman and other Members for convening the meeting
of the Service Committee.
With the permission of the Chair, the agenda item arising
out of the orders dated 16.12.2025 and 02.01.2026
passed by the Hon'ble High Court of H.P. in CWP No.
7725 of 2025, titled Disha Kumari Versus State of H.P.
and others, was taken up for consideration.
The Service Committee perused the aforesaid orders and
proceeded to comply with the directions of the Hon'ble
Court.
The petitioner was engaged as Project Manager (e-NAM)
on contract basis /co-terminus with the project, pursuant
to a selection process conducted in September, 2017, and
joined on 26.09.2017. A formal service contract was
executed between the petitioner and the Board's
authority. The Committee notes that the position of Project
Manager (e-NAM) was a project-linked, temporary
contractual arrangement, and was not encadred in the
Board's regular establishment/sanctioned strength under
the Board's statutory Service Regulations, nor were
Recruitment & Promotion Rules notified for this post
under the said Regulations. Consequently, the post did
::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2026 21:07:49 :::CIS

11
not exist as a regular cadre post to be filled/held under
High Court of H.P.
statutory R&P Rules.
The Resident Audit Scheme (Local Audit Department) had
raised objections regarding the engagement, inter-alia on
the ground that complete factual position was not placed
before the competent forum and also questioning the
justification/funding aspects of continuing such a position
from Board resources.
The Board of Members (BoM) in its meeting held on
09.01.2019 decided to discontinue the contractual
engagement. The petitioner challenged the same before
the erstwhile H.P. Administrative Tribunal and obtained
interim protection. After abolition of the Tribunal, the
matter was transferred to the Hon'ble High Court and
registered as CWPOA No. 6306 of 2020, and the
petitioner continued on the strength of interim orders.
Subsequently, on representation dated 26.02.2021, the
BoM decided to review its earlier decision and to
continue/reinstate the petitioner's contract subject to
withdrawal of the court case; the petitioner withdrew the
case and the contract was renewed/extended from time
to time on contractual terms (including annual increment
as admissible in contract). The petitioner has filed the
instant writ petition seeking regularisation (including
retrospective regularisation) of her contractual service by
invoking the Government policy for regularisation of
contractual appointees as stated to have been adopted by
the Board.
The Committee notes that, under the Board's (Recruitment
and Conditions of Service of Officers and Staff)
Regulations, 2006, the Regulations do not apply to "any
person whose terms and conditions of engagement have
::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2026 21:07:49 :::CIS

12
been settled by or under an agreement or contract
High Court of H.P.
entered into with him". In the present case, the
petitioner's engagement being contractual/project-tied,
her service conditions are governed by the executed
contract and not by regular cadre/service-rule incidents
under the statutory Regulations.
The Committee is guided by the settled constitutional
position that regularisation is not, and cannot be, a mode
of recruitment, and that an illegality-namely an
appointment made dehors a sanctioned post, statutory
rules, or the constitutional scheme-cannot be regularised.
The Committee further notes the settled principle that
mere continuation of a contractual or temporary
employee, including continuation under interim orders
(often described as "litigious employment"), does not
create any enforceable right to absorption or
regularisation.
The Committee also notes that the statutory policy
underlying the Himachal Pradesh Recruitment and
Conditions of Service of Government Employees Act, 2024
(Act No. 23 of 2025) confines service-rule benefits to
persons appointed on regular basis, with entitlement (if
any) flowing from the date of regularisation, and further
provides that service benefits already extended for
service "other than regular service" shall stand
withdrawn. Therefore, even independently of the question
of regularisation, no service benefit akin to that of a
regular employee can be extended to the petitioner.
Conferment of regular-service benefits (pay-scale as a
regular employee, regular increments, seniority,
promotional avenues, leave/service-rule benefits and
other allied benefits) upon a contractual/project-tied
::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2026 21:07:49 :::CIS

13
engagement would amount to granting regular status by
High Court of H.P.
indirect means, which is impermissible. The petitioner's
entitlement, if any, must remain confined to the
contractual terms applicable to such project-tied
engagement.
The Committee further records that Article 14 does not
envisage "negative equality" and there is no equality in
illegality. If any benefit/regularisation has been wrongly
extended to any other person (inadvertently or otherwise),
the same cannot be cited as a precedent or as a ground to
claim similar relief; a wrong/irregular benefit in one case
cannot be made the foundation to direct repetition of
illegality. Accordingly, any plea of parity/comparative
treatment based on alleged regularisation or service
benefits granted to others is rejected.
The Committee finds that the petitioner was engaged
against a project-tied contractual arrangement, and not
against a sanctioned cadre post in the Board's regular
establishment; further, no notified R&P Rules exist for the
post of Project Manager (e-NAM) under the Board's
statutory Regulations and the position is not encadred in
the sanctioned strength (Schedule-II). In view of the
statutory exclusion in the Board's Regulations for
engagements governed by agreement/contract, the
Committee holds that the petitioner cannot claim
regularisation as a matter of right. Granting
regularisation (particularly with retrospective effect)
would amount to conferring regular status dehors (i)
existence of a sanctioned cadre post, and (ii) notified R&P
Rules and prescribed recruitment channel, which is
impermissible in law; and mere continuation due to
interim protection cannot mature into a legal right for
::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2026 21:07:49 :::CIS

14
absorption/regularisation ("litigious employment").
High Court of H.P.
The Committee further observes that any decision
creating/encadring a post or framing R&P Rules is a
matter requiring competent statutory process/policy
approval and cannot be achieved indirectly through
regularisation of a contractual/project engagement. The
Board, being a statutory body, is governed by its own
statutory Regulations and sanctioned strength. Any
executive policy of contractual regularisation, even if
stated to be adopted by the Board, cannot operate to
create/encadre a post, bypass statutory recruitment
norms, or override the express exclusion contained in the
Board's Regulations for contractual engagements. Service
status cannot be conferred by policy where the statutory
framework does not provide for it.
The Committee is also guided by the constitutional
discipline under Articles 14 and 16 that public
employment must ordinarily be through a transparent,
rule-based process giving equal opportunity to all eligible
persons; conversion of a contractual/project engagement
into regular service would defeat this constitutional
scheme and deny opportunity to similarly situated
aspirants. Repeated contractual renewals, or continuation
pursuant to interim protection, do not create any
legitimate expectation or vested right to be
absorbed/regularised, nor can estoppel/legitimate
expectation be invoked to compel an act contrary to
statute, sanctioned strength, or the constitutional scheme.
The Committee also records that it has no statutory
competence to create or encadre posts, amend the
sanctioned strength, or notify R&P Rules; such actions
require approval through the competent
::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2026 21:07:49 :::CIS

15
statutory/financial process. Any regularisation/extension
High Court of H.P.
of regular-service benefits would create recurring financial
liability on public funds without a sanctioned cadre post
and without a notified recruitment framework, which is
impermissible and contrary to principles of financial
propriety and statutory control over establishment
expenditure.
In compliance with the directions of the Hon'ble Court, the
Committee has undertaken a reasoned consideration of
the petitioner's claim with reference to the record, the
Board's statutory Regulations, cadre position/sanctioned
strength and the governing legal principles, and records
its decision accordingly.
Accordingly, the Service Committee, after due
consideration of the record, statutory provisions and
settled law, expresses its inability to accede to the request
for regularisation (including retrospective regularisation)
of the petitioner as Project Manager (e-NAM) in the
establishment of the Board.
The Member Secretary is directed to place the outcome
before the Hon'ble High Court on or before the next date of
hearing. ”
What is mentioned in these minutes is completely unacceptable. The
contents of the minutes have smacks of arbitrariness and
unreasonableness. Having itself appointed the petitioner through
an open selection process, it is nothing but an attempt on the
part of the Board to evade its responsibility of regularizing the
services of the petitioner, which is totally unacceptable and
unjustifiable.
15. At this stage, this Court would like to refer to Annexure
::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2026 21:07:49 :::CIS

16
P-6, appended with the writ petition by the petitioner, which reads
High Court of H.P.
as under:-
“ I am directed to refer to your letter No. HMB(B)4-
190/2017-1266 dated 14-06-2024 on the subject cited
above and to say that the matter has en examined in this
department and reiterate its earlier advise conveyed to
you vide this department letter of even number dated 16-
03-2024 & 22-06-2024. Accordingly, the regularization
orders in respect of Smt. Disha Gupta, Project Manager
may be issued with prospective effect immediately.
Besides, the process for framing the R&P Rules may be
initiated. Thereafter, place the matter for ex-cost-facto
approval of the Board as and when the meeting held.
You are, therefore, requested to take further necessary
action in the matter accordingly, under intimation to this
department. ”
16. It is apparent and evident from the perusal of this
document that even Secretary (Agriculture) to the Government of
Himachal Pradesh-cum-Chairman of respondent No. 2 had called
upon the Managing Director of respondent No. 2 to regularize the
services of the petitioner with prospective effect immediately. Despite
these directions having been issued by the Chairman, respondent
No. 2 has not regularized the services of the petitioner till date,
which act of the respondent-Board is completely arbitrary,
discriminatory and not sustainable in the eyes of law. This is more
so in light of the fact that the State Government, from time to time,
is coming up with the Policies of regularization of contract employees
::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2026 21:07:49 :::CIS

17
and as observed hereinabove also, these Policies are applicable to
High Court of H.P.
the respondent-Board also.
17. At this stage, this Court would like to refer to certain
judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, which have been
recently passed on the issue of regularization of daily-wagers as also
contract employees.
18. Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Jaggo Versus Union of
India & Ors., 2024 SCC Online SC 3826 , has been pleased to hold as
under:-
“………... 10. Having given careful consideration to the
submissions advanced and the material on record, we
find that the appellants’ long and uninterrupted service,
for periods extending well beyond ten years, cannot be
brushed aside merely by labelling their initial
appointments as part-time or contractual. The essence of
their employment must be considered in the light of their
sustained contribution, the integral nature of their work,
and the fact that no evidence suggests their entry was
through any illegal or surreptitious route.
11. The appellants, throughout their tenure, were
engaged in performing essential duties that were
indispensable to the day-to-day functioning of the offices
of the Central Water Commission (CWC). Applicant Nos.
1, 2, and 3, as Safaiwalis, were responsible for
maintaining hygiene, cleanliness, and a conducive
working environment within the office premises. Their
duties involved sweeping, dusting, and cleaning of floors,
workstations, and common areas—a set of
responsibilities that directly contributed to the basic
::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2026 21:07:49 :::CIS

18
operational functionality of the CWC. Applicant No. 5, in
High Court of H.P.
the role of a Khallasi (with additional functions akin to
those of a Mali), was entrusted with critical maintenance
tasks, including gardening, upkeep of outdoor premises,
and ensuring orderly surroundings.
12. Despite being labelled as “part-time workers,” the
appellants performed these essential tasks on a daily
and continuous basis over extensive periods, ranging
from over a decade to nearly two decades. Their
engagement was not sporadic or temporary in nature;
instead, it was recurrent, regular, and akin to the
responsibilities typically associated with sanctioned
posts. Moreover, the respondents did not engage any
other personnel for these tasks during the appellants’
tenure, underscoring the indispensable nature of their
work.
13. The claim by the respondents that these were not
regular posts lacks merit, as the nature of the work
performed by the appellants was perennial and
fundamental to the functioning of the offices. The
recurring nature of these duties necessitates their
classification as regular posts, irrespective of how their
initial engagements were labelled. It is also noteworthy
that subsequent outsourcing of these same tasks to
private agencies after the appellants’ termination
demonstrates the inherent need for these services. This
act of outsourcing, which effectively replaced one set of
workers with another, further underscores that the work
in question was neither temporary nor occasional.
17. As for the argument relating to educational
qualifications, we find it untenable in the present context.
The nature of duties the appellants performed—cleaning,
::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2026 21:07:49 :::CIS

19
sweeping, dusting, and gardening—does not inherently
High Court of H.P.
mandate formal educational prerequisites. It would be
unjust to rely on educational criteria that were never
central to their engagement or the performance of their
duties for decades. Moreover, the respondents
themselves have, by their conduct, shown that such
criteria were not strictly enforced in other cases of
regularization. The appellants’ long-standing satisfactory
performance itself attests to their capability to discharge
these functions, making rigid insistence on formal
educational requirements an unreasonable hurdle. ”
In this judgment, Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that it is
imperative for Government Departments to lead by example in
providing fair and stable employment. Engaging workers on
temporary basis for extended periods, especially when their roles are
integral to the organization's functioning, not only contravenes
international labour standards but also exposes the organization to
legal challenges and undermines employee’s morale. By ensuring fair
employment practices, Government institutions can reduce the
burden of unnecessary litigation, promote job security, and uphold
the principles of justice and fairness that they are meant to embody.
This approach aligns with international standards and sets a
positive precedent for the private sector to follow, thereby
contributing to the overall betterment of labour practices in the
country. Hon’ble Supreme Court also held that the pervasive misuse
of temporary employment contracts reflects a broader systemic issue
that adversely affects workers' rights and job security. In the private
::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2026 21:07:49 :::CIS

20
sector, the rise of the gig economy has led to an increase in
High Court of H.P.
precarious employment arrangements, often characterized by lack of
benefits, job security, and fair treatment. Such practices have been
criticized for exploiting workers and undermining labour standards.
19. In Dharam Singh & Ors. Versus State of H.P. & Anr.,
2025 SCC Online SC 1735 ( 2025 INSC 998 ) , Hon’ble Supreme Court
has been pleased to hold 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 public functions. Where work recurs day after
day and year after year, establishment must reflect that
reality in its sanctioned strength and engagement
practices. The long-term 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
::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2026 21:07:49 :::CIS

21
considered, why similarly placed workers were treated
High Court of H.P.
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. ”
20. In Bhola Nath Versus the State of Jharkhand & Ors.,
2026 SCC Online SC 129 ( 2026 INSC 99 ) , Hon’ble Supreme Court
has been pleased to hold as under:-
“ 13. Another facet requiring consideration in the case of
contractual employees, such as the present appellants, is
the doctrine of legitimate expectation. Where employees
have continued to discharge their duties on contractual
posts for a considerable length of time, as in the present
case, it is but natural that a legitimate expectation arises
that the State would, at some stage, recognize their long
and continuous service. It is in this belief, bolstered by
repeated extensions granted by the Executive, that such
employees continue in service and refrain from seeking
alternative employment, notwithstanding the contractual
nature of their engagement. At this juncture, it is thus
apposite to advert to the principles governing the doctrine
of legitimate expectation as enunciated by this Court in
Army Welfare Education Society v. Sunil Kumar Sharma,
(2024) 16 SCC 598 wherein it was held as follows: -
"63. A reading of the aforesaid decisions brings forth
the following features regarding the doctrine of
legitimate expectation:
63.1. First, legitimate expectation must be based on a
right as opposed to a mere hope, wish or anticipation:
::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2026 21:07:49 :::CIS

22
63.2. Secondly, legitimate expectation must arise
High Court of H.P.
either from an express or implied promise; or a
consistent past practice or custom followed by an
authority in its dealings;
…
63.5. Fifthly, legitimate expectation operates in the
realm of public law, that is. a plea of legitimate action
can be taken only when a public authority breaches a
promise or deviates from a consistent past practice,
without any reasonable basis.
64. The aforesaid features, although not exhaustive in
nature, are sufficient to help us in deciding the
applicability of the doctrine of legitimate expectation to
the facts of the case at hand. It is clear that legitimate
expectation. jurisprudentially, was a device created in
order to maintain a check on arbitrariness in State
action. It does not extend to and cannot govern the
operation of contracts between private parties, wherein
the doctrine of promissory estoppel holds the field."
It is, therefore, not difficult to comprehend the
expectation with which such contractual employees
continue in the service of the State. The repeated
conduct of the employer-State in expressing confidence
in their performance and consistently granting
monetary upgrades & tenure extensions reasonably
nurtures an expectation that their long and continuous
service would receive further recognition.
13.1. Another Constitution Bench in State of
Karnataka v. Umadevi, (2006) 4 SCC 1 cautioned that
the doctrine of legitimate expectation cannot ordinarily
be extended to persons whose appointments are
::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2026 21:07:49 :::CIS

23
temporary, casual or contractual in nature. The
High Court of H.P.
relevant extract of the judgment reads as follows: -
"47. When a person enters a temporary employment or
gets engagement as a contractual or casual worker
and the engagement is not based on a proper selection
as recognised by the reievant rules or procedure, he is
aware of the consequences of the appointment being
temporary, casual or contractual in nature. Such a
person cannot invoke the theory of legitimate
expectation for being confirmed in the post when an
appointment to the post could be made only by
following a proper procedure for selection and in cases
concerned, in consultation with the Public Service
Commission. Therefore, the theory of legitimate
expectation cannot be successfully advanced by
temporary. contractual or casual employees. It cannot
also be held that the State has held out any promise
while engaging these persons either to continue them
where they are or to make them permanent. The State
cannot constitutionally make such a promise. It is also
obvious that the theory cannot be invoked to seek a
positive relief of being made permanent in the post."
However, this Court in Umadevi (supra) clarified that the
bar against invocation of the doctrine of legitimate
expectation applies only to those temporary, contractual
or casual employees whose engagement was not
preceded by a proper selection process in accordance
with the extant rules. Consequently, where such
engagement is made after following a due and lawful
selection procedure, there is no absolute bar in law
preventing such employees from invoking the doctrine of
legitimate expectation.
::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2026 21:07:49 :::CIS

24
Limits on Perpetual Contractual Engagements:
High Court of H.P.
13.2. In the present case, the respondent-State had
engaged the services of the appellants on sanctioned
posts since the year 2012. It was only towards the end of
the year 2022 that the respondents communicated that
no further extension of the appellants' engagement was
likely to be granted.
13.3. In our considered opinion, the aforesaid action is
not only vitiated by arbitrariness but is also in clear
derogation of the equality principles enshrined in Article
14 of the Constitution. The respondent-State initially
engaged the appellants in their youth to discharge public
duties and functions. Having rendered long and
dedicated service, the appellants cannot now be left to
fend for themselves, particularly when the employment
opportunities that may have been available to them a
decade ago are no longer accessible owing to age
constraints.
13.4. We are unable to discern any rational basis for the
respondent-State's decision to discontinue the appellants
after nearly ten years of continuous service. We are
conscious that the symbiotic-relationship between the
appellants and the respondent-State was mutually
beneficial, the State derived the advantage of the
appellants' experience and institutional familiarity, while
the appellants remained in public service. In such
circumstances, any departure from a long-standing
practice of renewal, particularly one that frustrates the
legitimate expectation of the employees, ought to be
supported by cogent reasons recorded in a speaking
order.
::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2026 21:07:49 :::CIS

25
13.5. Such a decision must necessarily be a conscious
High Court of H.P.
and reasoned one. An employee who has satisfactorily
discharged his duties over several years and has been
granted repeated extensions cannot, overnight, be treated
as surplus or undesirable. We are unable to accept the
justification advanced by the respondents as the
obligation of the State, as a model employer, extends to
fair treatment of its employees irrespective of whether
their engagement is contractual or regular.
13.6. This Court has, on several occasions, deprecated
the practice adopted by States of engaging employees
under the nominal labels of "part-time", "contractual" or
"temporary" in perpetuity and thereby exploiting them by
not regularizing their positions. In Jaggo v. Union of India,
2024 SCC Online SC 3826 this Court underscored that
government departments must lead by example in
ensuring fair and stable employment, and evolved the
test of examining whether the duties performed by such
temporary employees are integral to the day-to-day
functioning of the organization.
13.7. In Shripal v. Nagar Nigam, 2025 SCC Online SC 221
and Vinod Kumar v. Union of India, (2024) 9 SCC 327 this
Court cautioned against a mechanical and blind reliance
on Umadevi (supra) to deny regularization to temporary
employees in the absence of statutory rules. It was held
that Umadevi (supra) cannot be employed as a for years
without undertaking regular recruitment. The Court
further clarified that Umadevi itself draws a distinction
between appointments that are "illegal" and those that
are merely "irregular", the latter being amenable to
regularization upon fulfilment of the prescribed
conditions.
::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2026 21:07:49 :::CIS

26
13.8. In Dharam Singh v. State of U.P. 2025 SCC Online
High Court of H.P.
SC 1735, this Court strongly deprecated the culture of
"ad-hocism" adopted by States in their capacity as
employers. The Court criticised the practice of outsourcing
or informalizing recruitment as a means to evade regular
employment obligations, observing that such measures
perpetuate precarious working conditions while
circumventing fair and lawful engagement practices.
13.9. The State must remain conscious that part-time
employees, such as the appellants, constitute an integral
part of the edifice upon which the machinery of the State
continues to function. They are not merely ancillary to the
system, but form essential components thereof. The
equality mandate of our Constitution, therefore, requires
that their service be reciprocated in a manner free from
arbitrariness, ensuring that decisions of the State
affecting the careers and livelihood of such part-time and
contractual employees are guided by fairness and
reason.
13.10. In the aforesaid backdrop, we are unable to
persuade ourselves to accept the respondent-State's
contention that the mere contractual nomenclature of the
appellants' engagement denudes them of constitutional
protection. The State, having availed of the appellants'
services on sanctioned posts for over a decade pursuant
to a due process of selection and having consistently
acknowledged their satisfactory performance, cannot, in
the absence of cogent reasons or a speaking decision,
bruptly discontinue such engagement by taking refuge
behind formal contractual clauses. Such action is
manifestly arbitrary, inconsistent with the obligation of the
::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2026 21:07:49 :::CIS

27
ate to act as a model employer, and fails to withstand
High Court of H.P.
scrutiny under Article 14 of me Constitution .
21. Therefore, in light of the above discussions and also the
law declared by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and further in
the light of communication Annexure P-6, issued by the Chairman of
respondent No. 2, this writ petition is allowed. The act of the
respondent-Board of not regularizing the services of the petitioner is
declared to be bad in law and the respondents are directed to
regularize the services of the petitioner as Project Manager w.e.f.
02.07.2024, i.e. the date when the Chairman of respondent No. 2
directed the regularization her services. The regularization of the
services of the petitioner from the date mentioned hereinabove shall
be with all consequential benefits, including monetary and seniority,
22. The petition stands disposed of, so also the pending
miscellaneous application(s), if any.

(Ajay Mohan Goel)
Judge
July 31, 2026
(Rishi)

::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2026 21:07:49 :::CIS