SUSHMA DEVI AND ORS vs STATE OF HP AND ORS

2026:HHC:31447-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
High Court of H.P.
CWP No.376 of 2026
Reserved on: 08.07.2026
Decided on: 29.07.2026
Uploaded on: 29.07.2026
Sushma Devi & others … Petitioners
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and others … Respondents
Coram
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge.
1
Whether approved for reporting? Yes
____________________________________________________ _
For the petitioners: Mr. Rajnish Maniktala, Senior Advocate,
with Mr. Dinkar Bhaskar, Advocate.
For the respondents: Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, Additional Advocate
General, for respondents No.1 to 3.
Mr. Vikas Rathore, Advocate, for respondent
No.4.
Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge
By way of this petition, the petitioners have, inter alia ,
prayed for the following reliefs:-
“ (A) That the respondents may be directed to frame
Regularisation Policy for the Marta regularising the
services of the petitioners in the respondent Institute.
(B) That in terms of the Regularisation Policy so framed,
the respondent State may be directed to act in furtherance
of the same and consider the petitioners for regularisation
of their services.
(C) Any other order deemed just and proper may also be
passed in the facts and circumstances stated hereinabove
in favour of the petitioners.
(D) That respondent No.1 to 3 may be directed to
regularise the service of the petitioners against the
1
Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?


::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2026 19:07:52 :::CIS

2
2026:HHC:31447-DB
High Court of H.P.
regularly created posts, in terms of the regularisation
policy of the State as followed in case of respondent no.
4 .”
2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition
are that the Himachal Pradesh Revenue Training Institute was
established at Joginder Nagar, District Mandi in the year 1996. The
purpose of establishing the said Institute was to impart training to
Officers from the rank of Patwari to IAS Officers, as per the
provisions of Chapter-29 of the Himachal Pradesh Land Records
Manual. In terms of Annexure P-2, i.e. communication dated
03.07.2014, Principal Secretary-cum-Financial Commissioner
(Revenue), to the Government of Himachal Pradesh intimated
Director of Land Revenue that creation of 8 posts on contract basis
had been approved in the Revenue Training Institute, Joginder
Nagar. These were: 1 post of Mathematics Teacher, 1 post of Physical
Education Teacher, 2 posts of Clerks, 1 post of Librarian, 2 posts of
P.N. (Peon) and 1 post of Sweeper. In terms of Annexure P-3,
Secretary, H.P. Subordinate Services Selection Board, Hamirpur,
wrote to the Director of the Revenue Training Institute, Joginder
Nagar, on the subject regarding the issue of NOC for filling the
tenure-based posts sanctioned for Patwari training, that as per the
Rules of Business and Procedure 2004, recruitment on a tenure
basis was not within the purview of the Subordinate Service
Selection Board, Hamirpur.
::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2026 19:07:52 :::CIS

3
2026:HHC:31447-DB
High Court of H.P.
3. Thereafter, an advertisement was issued vide Annexure
P-4, inviting eligible candidates for the walk-in interview for the
posts advertised therein. Pursuant to the interviews which took
place on the basis of the advertisement Annexure P-4, the present
petitioners were appointed against the posts of Clerk, Mathematics
Teacher, Librarian, Peon and Sweeper on contractual basis for a
period of one year vide appointment orders dated 12.08.2014 and
13.08.2014.
4. To cut the issue short, after their engagement as such,
all the petitioners are till date serving the Institute on regular basis
without any break etc., as the contractual service of the petitioners
has been extended regularly. At this stage, it is relevant to mention
that vide Annexure P-12, i.e. order dated 17.09.2016, approval was
accorded by the Government to increase 50% of the Grade Pay in
favour of 8 employees working on contract basis in Revenue Training
Institute Joginder Nagar, subject to completion of codal formalities.
Thereafter, in terms of Annexure P-13, 3% annual increment was
also granted to the petitioners.
5. At this stage, it is also relevant to mention that on
04.05.2017, a communication was addressed by Additional Chief
Secretary (Personnel) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, to all
the Administrative Secretaries to the Government of Himachal
Pradesh, all Divisional Commissioners, all Heads of Departments
::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2026 19:07:52 :::CIS

4
2026:HHC:31447-DB
High Court of H.P.
and all Deputy Commissioners on the subject ‘regularization of
contract appointees in the Government Departments instructions
thereof’. In terms of these instructions, it was mentioned that the
Government had decided that services of contractual appointees,
who had completed 3 years continuous service as on 31.03.2017, be
regularized and that it was also decided that contract appointees
who are due to complete 3 years of continuous service as on
30.09.2017, shall be regularized after 30.09.2017. These
instructions are on record appended as Annexure A-4 with CMP No.
19858 of 2025.
6. In terms of Annexures P-14 dated 21.08.2017, P-15
dated 14.03.2018 and P-16 dated 26.06.2019, Director of the
respondent-Institute took up the issue with the Competent Superior
Authorities for regularization of the services of the petitioners. Vide
Annexure P-21, Director, Land Records informed that the
Recruitment and Promotion Rules formulated by the Department of
Personnel were applicable in the respondent-Institution and
thereafter, vide communication dated 05.02.2020 (Annexure P-22),
Director, Land Records again recommended the regularization of the
services of the petitioners upon completion of 3 years of contractual
service in terms of the regularization Policy dated 04.05.2017.
7. According to the petitioners, despite all these
recommendations in their favour, in terms of Annexure P-25,
::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2026 19:07:52 :::CIS

5
2026:HHC:31447-DB
High Court of H.P.
Principal Secretary and Financial Commissioner (Revenue) intimated
Director, Land Records that status-quo qua services of the
petitioners be maintained. Further, according to the petitioners,
respondent No. 4 Smt. Kusum Lata was appointed as a Computer
Teacher on a contractual basis in the respondent-Institute vide
Annexure P-45 on 22.05.2007. Vide order dated 20.12.2013, one
post of Computer Instructor was created in the Institute. DPC
proceedings were held on 04.06.2014, which recommended the case
of Smt. Kusum Lata for regularization and vide Annexure P-49 dated
04.06.2014, her services stand regularized.
8. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner referred to
Annexure P-52 and submitted that in terms of this communication
dated 04.03.2024, the conversion of seven posts of various categories
in the respondent-Institute was approved by the Council of Ministers
in its meeting held on 17.01.2024, by abolishing eight temporary
posts previously created. It was also mentioned in said
communication that the services of 7 persons engaged against the
temporary post in Revenue Training Institute, Joginder Nagar be
extended from time to time on year-to-year basis till the filling of
these posts on regular basis. It was also mentioned that as far as the
regularization of the services of petitioners against these newly
created posts is concerned, regular posts are to be filled as per
procedure laid down in Recruitment and Promotion Rules on the
::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2026 19:07:52 :::CIS

6
2026:HHC:31447-DB
High Court of H.P.
basis of entrance examination conducted through appropriate
Recruitment Agency and there was no provision in the Recruitment
and Promotion Rules of these categories to convert the services of
persons posted on temporary basis into regular ones. Learned Senior
Counsel also submitted that whereas on one hand, the
regularization to the petitioners was being denied on account of
justification contained in Annexure P-52, the private respondents
stood regularized despite being similarly situated. In this backdrop,
the writ petition was amended, assailing the regularization of the
private respondents. Learned Senior Counsel argued that in the
peculiar facts of this case, the non-regularization of the petitioners
despite now regular posts being available is highly arbitrary,
discriminatory and unjustified in law. He also argued that the
petitioners were appointed through a walk-in interview, which was
an open selection process undertaken by the Institute to fill up the
posts which were advertised. Thus, he submitted that it is not as if
the petitioners were appointed against the posts in issue through
backdoor entry. He also submitted that in terms of Annexure P-3,
NOC was obtained by the Institute from the Subordinate Service
Selection Board, which led to the appointment of the petitioners on
contract basis.
9. Learned Senior Counsel, by referring to the appointment
letters of the petitioners submitted that it is evident and apparent
::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2026 19:07:52 :::CIS

7
2026:HHC:31447-DB
High Court of H.P.
from the language of these office orders that the appointment of the
petitioners was on contract basis. He further submitted that the
petitioners, since the year 2014, are regularly serving in the
respondent-Institute without any break and there is no impediment
in their regularization. He submitted that all the petitioners are duly
eligible and possess requisite educational qualifications for being
regularized against the posts which are being held by them. He also
submitted that for more than a decade, the petitioners have been
performing their duties diligently without any remiss, which is also
evident from the fact that there is no allegation of any misconduct
against any of the petitioners. Learned Senior Counsel thus
submitted that in these particular circumstances, the act of the
Department of not regularizing the services of the petitioners is bad
in law and accordingly he prayed that the present petition be
allowed, as prayed for.
10. On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General
submitted that the appointment of the petitioners in the mode and
manner same cannot culminate into their regularization. He
submitted that when the petitioners were engaged in the year 2014,
the terms and conditions of appointment were made aware to them
and it is not as if at that stage any assurance etc., was given to them
that their services would be regularized. He submitted that though it
is a matter of record that now regular posts stand created in the
::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2026 19:07:52 :::CIS

8
2026:HHC:31447-DB
High Court of H.P.
Institute, but then the posts have to be filled in on the basis of the
Recruitment and Promotion Rules. He also submitted that as far as
the regularization of respondent No.4 is concerned, she was rightly
regularized in the backdrop of how she was engaged and as there is
no similarity in the engagement of the said respondent with that of
the petitioners, the petitioners neither can claim any similarity with
respondent No.4 nor they can assail her regularization.
11. Learned Counsel appearing for the private respondents
has also adopted the arguments of the learned Additional Advocate
General.
12. I have heard learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners
and also learned Additional Advocate General and learned Counsel
for the private respondents. I have also carefully gone through the
pleadings as well as documents appended therewith.
13. As there are applications filed with the writ petition, it is
hereby ordered that applications which are on record and which yet
have not been formally allowed, are hereby allowed and documents
appended therewith are taken on record.
14. In the present case, the petitioners were engaged in the
respondent-Institute against the posts which were created in terms
of Annexure P-2. A perusal of Annexure P-2, dated 03.04.2014,
demonstrates that when these posts were created, the creation
thereof was on contract basis for a time period of one and a half
::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2026 19:07:52 :::CIS

9
2026:HHC:31447-DB
High Court of H.P.
year, subject to completion of all codal formalities. The petitioners
were appointed against the posts on the basis of a walk-in interview,
which was held pursuant to advertisement Annexure P-4, dated
26.07.2014. The essential qualifications necessary, which a
candidate was to fulfill for appointment against each post was
categorically and expressly mentioned in the advertisement.
15. The petitioners were appointed after facing the walk-in
interview, as they were fulfilling the eligibility criteria laid down in
the advertisement. Though in terms of Annexure P-2, the posts were
created for one and a half year, but fact of the matter is that after the
appointment of the petitioners on contract basis against the said
posts in the year 2014, they are continuing the same as such till
date. Not only this, in terms of Annexure P-52, order dated
04.03.2024, the posts against which the petitioners are appointed
have been now converted into regular posts. Meaning thereby, that
as of now, the petitioners are serving against regular posts, though
on contractual basis and, that too, at least from the month of March,
2024.
16. Though this Court is not going into the issue of the
legality of regularization of the private respondent, but in light of the
fact that the private respondent was also engaged on contractual
basis in the respondent-Institute and that too after the petitioners
and has been regularized in the year 2014, the petitioners cannot be
::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2026 19:07:52 :::CIS

10
2026:HHC:31447-DB
High Court of H.P.
discriminated as far as their regularization is concerned. If one
incumbent appointed on contract basis in the respondent-Institute
could have been regularized as far back as in the year 2014 and that
too someone engaged after the appointment of the petitioners on
contract basis, then it is not understood as to what is the
impediment in regularization of the petitioners, who at least are
similarly situated as the private respondents to the extent that they
were also engaged on contract basis in same Institute and are
seeking their regularization.
17. The Policy referred to by learned Senior Counsel, issued
by the State Government in the year 2017 also makes it amply clear
that it was a conscious decision taken by the Government in the
year 2017 that incumbents, who have completed 3 years of
continuous service on contract basis as on the dates mentioned in
the said instructions, were entitled for regularization. This Court is
not suggesting that the petitioners should be regularized from the
year 2017, because this Court is of the considered view that till the
time regular posts were not created in the Institute, no order of
regularization could have been passed in favour of the petitioners.
However, once regular posts stand created on which the petitioners
are presently performing their duties and further as the recruitment
of the petitioners on contract basis was done by following a
screening process which was open to all, the act of the respondents
::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2026 19:07:52 :::CIS

11
2026:HHC:31447-DB
High Court of H.P.
of not regularizing the services of the petitioners even after more
than 12 years of their engagement as such is not justified in law.
18. The petitioners are performing their duties in the
Institute for the last 12 years. Least they expect from the
Department is that in light of the long service rendered with the
Institute, their services should be regularized. The posts against
which the petitioners have been engaged include the posts of Peon,
Sweeper, Librarian, Clerks and Mathematics Teacher.
19. At this stage, this Court would like to refer to certain
recent judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, dealing with the
subject of regularization of daily wagers and contractual employees.
20. 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
::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2026 19:07:52 :::CIS

12
2026:HHC:31447-DB
High Court of H.P.
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
operational functionality of the CWC. Applicant No. 5, in
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
::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2026 19:07:52 :::CIS

13
2026:HHC:31447-DB
High Court of H.P.
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,
sweeping, dusting, and gardening—does not inherently
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 a
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 employees morale. By ensuring fair
::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2026 19:07:52 :::CIS

14
2026:HHC:31447-DB
High Court of H.P.
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
sector, the rise of the gig economy has led to an increase in
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.
21. 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
::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2026 19:07:52 :::CIS

15
2026:HHC:31447-DB
High Court of H.P.
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. ”
22. In Bhola Nath Versus the State of Jharkhand & Ors.,
2026 INSC 99
2026 SCC Online SC 129 ( ) , 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
::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2026 19:07:52 :::CIS

16
2026:HHC:31447-DB
High Court of H.P.
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:
63.2. Secondly, legitimate expectation must arise
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
::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2026 19:07:52 :::CIS

17
2026:HHC:31447-DB
High Court of H.P.
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
temporary, casual or contractual in nature. The
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
::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2026 19:07:52 :::CIS

18
2026:HHC:31447-DB
High Court of H.P.
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.
Limits on Perpetual Contractual Engagements:
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
::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2026 19:07:52 :::CIS

19
2026:HHC:31447-DB
High Court of H.P.
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.
13.5. Such a decision must necessarily be a conscious
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.
::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2026 19:07:52 :::CIS

20
2026:HHC:31447-DB
High Court of H.P.
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.
13.8. In Dharam Singh v. State of U.P. 2025 SCC Online
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
::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2026 19:07:52 :::CIS

21
2026:HHC:31447-DB
High Court of H.P.
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
lauses. Such action is manifestly arbitrary, inconsistent
with the obligation of the ate to act as a model employer,
and fails to withstand scrutiny under Article 14 of me
Constitution.
23. In light of above-mentioned pronouncements of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court and the fact that the petitioners have been
::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2026 19:07:52 :::CIS

22
2026:HHC:31447-DB
High Court of H.P.
performing their duties diligently with the respondent-Institute for
more than a decade now on contract basis, this Court is of the
considered view that their services are entitled to be regularized.
24. It is not in dispute that there is a Policy of regularization
being followed by the State Government and therefore, it is not as if
there is no regularization of contract appointees in the State of
Himachal Pradesh. More so, in light of the fact that the appointment
of the petitioners was not through a back door entry, but through an
open competition by way of a walk-in-interview and they were
recruited as they were fulfilling the eligibility criteria laid down in
the advertisement, they cannot be now denied regularization on the
plea that the posts have to be filled in as per the Recruitment and
Promotion Rules. The long service rendered by the petitioners cannot
be negated by refusing regularization of their services, especially in
light of the pronouncements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred
to hereinabove.
25. Accordingly, in light of the above observations, this writ
petition is allowed. The act of the respondents of not regularizing the
petitioners despite the posts against which they are serving having
been converted to regular posts is held to be bad in law. Respondents
are directed to regularize the services of the petitioners forthwith,
i.e., from the date of this judgment, with all benefits. This Court is
not disturbing the appointment of the private respondents.
::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2026 19:07:52 :::CIS

23
2026:HHC:31447-DB
High Court of H.P.
26. Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of, so also
pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.

(Ajay Mohan Goel)
Judge
July 29, 2026
(Rishi)
::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2026 19:07:52 :::CIS