PRIYAVART NAWANI vs UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA

CWP No.6817 of 2022
Reserved on:-08.07.2026
th
Decided on 28 July 2026
Priyavart Nawani
…Petitioner
Versus
Union of India and others
…Respondents
Coram
High Court of H.P.
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge
1
Whether approved for reporting? Yes
For the petitioner: Mr. Surinder Sharma, Senior Advocate,
with Mr. Neeraj Sharma, Advocate.

For the respondents: Mr. Balram Sharma, Deputy Solicitor
General of India with Mr. Rajeev
Sharma, Advocate, for the
respondents.

Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral )


By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has, inter
alia , prayed for the following reliefs:-
“(i) That the impugned Annexure-P10, dated 20th
September, 2022, issued by respondent No.3, may
kindly be quashed and set aside;

(ii) That the respondents may kindly be directed to
permit the petitioner to discharge his duties as
Orientation & Mobility Instructor at Composite Regional
Centre for Persons with Disabilities, Sundernagar;

(iii) That the respondents may kindly be directed to
regularize the services of the petitioner as Orientation &
Mobility Instructor w.e.f. the year 2010/2011 with all
consequential benefits;
::: Downloaded on - 28/07/2026 20:07:14 :::CIS

2

(iv) That the respondents may kindly be directed to not
to treat the period with effect from the issuance of
impugned order dated 20.09.2022 upto the date of
reinstatement/re-engagement/reappointment of the
petitioner as break in service.”

2. The case of the petitioner is that, in terms of
High Court of H.P.
Annexure P-1, employment notification bearing No.NIVH/CRC-
S/2005, applications were invited by the Composite Regional
Centre for Persons with Disabilities, Sundernagar (“CRC
Sundernagar”) for various posts advertised therein, including
the post of Orientation and Mobility Instructor.
3. As the petitioner was fulfilling the eligibility criteria,
he applied for the post in issue. Vide Annexure P-2,
communication dated 25.11.2005, the petitioner was offered
appointment against the post of Orientation and Mobility
Instructor on contract basis for two years initially in the pay
scale of Rs.5000-8000 at CRC Sundernagar.
4. It is the case of the petitioner that thereafter his
services were continued by way of extension on contractual
appointment and his pay band etc. was also increased by
granting him annual increments etc.

::: Downloaded on - 28/07/2026 20:07:14 :::CIS

3
5. The grievance of the petitioner is that after serving
High Court of H.P.
the CRC for 17 years with an unblemished record, in terms of
Annexure P-10 i.e., order dated 20.09.2022, his services have
been terminated.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that
the petitioner was appointed as an Orientation and Mobility
Instructor after following due process. He was appointed
against a sanctioned post after undergoing a proper selection
procedure. He submitted that the very fact that the services of
the petitioner were continued for 17 years demonstrates that
there was an element of permanency with the post attached.
Learned counsel has drawn the attention of the Court to
Annexure P-8 appended with the writ petition and submitted
that in terms of the said information which was supplied by the
Officer In-charge of CRC Sundernagar, Mandi to Section Officer
Administration, NIEPVD Dehradun on the subject "Submission
of Information sought by Prime Minister's Office for Review of
Autonomous Bodies", the staff strength of CRC Sundernagar
was apprised. In terms of this information, the staff strength
was stated to be 52, out of which 20 was sanctioned regular
::: Downloaded on - 28/07/2026 20:07:14 :::CIS

4
strength, 30 was contractual strength and 2 outsourced
High Court of H.P.
employees. Learned counsel by referring to this Annexure P-8
submitted that the post of Orientation and Mobility Instructor
was mentioned in this communication as a regular post, which
was further reflected as filled by the present petitioner. He thus
submitted that in light of this fact, the act of the respondents, at
the first instance to not regularize the services of the petitioner
after having put in almost two decades of service against the
post, in issue which in terms of Annexure P-8, was a regular
post was an arbitrary act and the termination of the service of
the petitioner in this particular backdrop is not sustainable.
7. On the other hand, learned Deputy Solicitor
General of India submitted that the petitioner was appointed
against the post of Orientation and Mobility Instructor with CRC,
Sundernagar, in terms of the advertisement issued, in which, it
was categorically mentioned that the appointment was on
contractual basis. He submitted that the petitioner accepted the
appointment knowing fully well that the same was on
contractual basis. He further submitted that the engagement in
CRC Sundernagar was only for a limited period, on need basis
::: Downloaded on - 28/07/2026 20:07:14 :::CIS

5
and as per the requirements of the project concerned. He
High Court of H.P.
stated that this practice is common across all ministries,
Departments, and Institutions. He further submitted that as the
petitioner was selected and appointed on contract basis as per
the need of the initiative concerned and for a fixed term
duration on contractual basis without any assurance or promise
that his services would be regularized or that his services would
not be terminated, the petitioner cannot now challenge his
termination. He further submitted that otherwise also, in light of
the law declared by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in
Secretary of State versus Uma Devi (2006) 4 SCC 1, the
petitioner did not have any right to seek his regularization or
challenge his termination from service.
8. In the backdrop of said factual matrix, when the
case was heard by this Court on 25.09.2025, the following
order was passed:-
“Petitioner herein is aggrieved of non-
regularization despite his having put in more than
twenty years of service.
Careful perusal of submission of information
sought by Prime Minister’s office for review of the
autonomous bodies (Annexure P-8), this Court finds
that petitioner herein has been shown to be regular
employee of the respondents. If it is so, there is no
::: Downloaded on - 28/07/2026 20:07:14 :::CIS

6
reason, if any, for the petitioner to seek relief as has
been detailed herein above. As per aforesaid document,
petitioner herein has been working on regular basis, but
perusal of order dated 20.9.2022, suggests that
petitioner, who was working against the post of
Orientation and Mobility Instructor has been removed.
Once vide communication dated 30.12.2020
(Annexure P-8), wherein certain information came to be
supplied to the Prime Minister’s Office, petitioner has
been shown to be working against the regular post that
too on regular basis, it is not understood that how
impugned action is sustainable under law.
Faced with aforesaid situation, learned Additional
Advocate General prays for and is granted two weeks’
time to have instructions. Moreover, learned counsel for
the petitioner claims that petitioner is being paid regular
pay-scale as revised from time to time alongwith
benefits.
List on 14.11.2025.”

9. In response thereto, a supplementary affidavit was
High Court of H.P.
filed by Director of National Institute for Empowerment of
Persons with Visual Disabilities, relevant portion whereof is
quoted herein below:-
“That it is respectfully submitted that Respondent
No. 4 issued an advertisement dated 05.08.2005
inviting applications for various posts on
deputation/contract basis, including the post of
Orientation & Mobility Instructor. A copy of the said
advertisement is annexed herewith as Annexure P-1 to
the writ petition.

That the Petitioner was offered appointment on a
contract basis for an initial period of two years in the
pay scale of ₹5000-150-8000, vide offer letter dated
25.11.2005 (Annexure P-2 to the writ petition). The
Petitioner duly accepted the terms and conditions
stipulated in the said offer, pursuant to which Office
Order No. CRC/P-18 dated 03.01.2006 was issued,
::: Downloaded on - 28/07/2026 20:07:14 :::CIS

7
appointing the Petitioner as Orientation & Mobility
Instructor (Contract Basis) with effect from 01.12.2005.
It is further submitted that the Petitioner's contractual
engagement was extended from time to time on the
same terms and conditions as contained in the original
offer-letter.

That with reference to the observations made by
this Hon'ble Court regarding Annexure P-8 annexed
with the writ petition, it is respectfully submitted that the
said Annexure reflects the petitioner as a regular
employee. However, the term "regular post" used
therein pertains solely to posts sanctioned with
approved pay scales and admissible allowances under
the sanctioned structure of the Composite Regional
Center (respondent No. 3), and does not denote the
employment status of the incumbent.

That the expression "regular" in this context was
intended to signify that the post formed part of the
sanctioned establishment. The incumbents, however,
were appointed on a contractual basis in accordance
with the terms and conditions specified in the relevant
advertisement. These appointments were initially made
for a period of one year against sanctioned posts with
approved pay scales, and were subsequently extended
from time to time under the same contractual terms.

That in light of the above clarification, it is
respectfully submitted that the information contained in
Annexure P-8 may not be construed as evidence of
regular appointment The respondents, in their reply to
the writ petitions, consistently maintained that the
petitioners' engagements were purely contractual in
nature, without any entitlement, assurance, or legitimate
expectation of regularization or appointment to
substantive posts.

That it is further submitted that the mere
extension of regular pay scales to these contractual
appointees does not confer upon them any right to
regularization. It is pertinent to mention that, since the
year 2022, the petitioners have continued in service
High Court of H.P.
::: Downloaded on - 28/07/2026 20:07:14 :::CIS

8
solely by virtue of interim stay orders granted by this
Hon'ble High Court.

That it is most respectfully prayed that keeping in
view of the submissions made hereinabove, the present
supplementary affidavit may kindly be taken on record
and information contained in Annexure P-8 may not be
construed as evidence of regular appointment in the
interest of justice and fair play.”

10. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as
High Court of H.P.
also learned Deputy Solicitor General of India and have also
carefully gone through the pleadings as well as documents
appended therewith.
11. Before proceeding further, it is pertinent to mention
at this stage that the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court, in
terms of order dated 28.09.2022, was pleased to stay the
operation of order dated 20.09.2022 (Annexure P-10), in terms
whereof, the services of the petitioner were terminated. Thus,
as a result thereof, the petitioner still continues to be in the
service of the respondents.
12. The facts as stand narrated hereinabove,
demonstrate that the petitioner was appointed as an Instructor
against the post of Orientation and Mobility Inspector in
response to Annexure P-1.
::: Downloaded on - 28/07/2026 20:07:14 :::CIS

9
13. In terms of Annexure P-1, employment notification
High Court of H.P.
was issued, inviting applications on deputation/contract basis
for Composite Regional Center for Persons with Disabilities
established at Sundernagar, Himachal Pradesh. Advertisement
Annexure P-1 was issued in the year 2005 when the Persons
with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and
Full Participation) Act, 1995 were in force.
14. The Composite Regional Center for Persons with
Disabilities was established by the Ministry of Social Justice
and Empowerment, Government of India, under the
administrative control of NIVH, Dehradun. Thus, it is evident
that the establishment of this center was to give effect to the
provisions of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities,
Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995.
15. It is a matter of record that after appointment of the
petitioner, as such, on contract basis for two years initially as
per Annexure P-2, he continued to serve as such till his
services were terminated and thereafter also, he is continuing
to serve as such on the strength of the interim order passed in
his favour by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court.
::: Downloaded on - 28/07/2026 20:07:14 :::CIS

10
16. Documents appended with the petition also
High Court of H.P.
demonstrate that from time to time, annual increment was
sanctioned to the Officers/Staff of CRC Sundernagar by the
Competent Authority and this also included the petitioner, who
is reflected in the orders of grant of annual increment as
Rehabilitation Officer.
17. It is also a matter of record that the MACP benefit
has also been given to the petitioner, as is evident from
Annexure P-6 appended with the petition and in terms of
Annexure P-7, consequent upon the revision of the pay scale,
approval was accorded by the Competent Authority to revise
the pay of the Officers/Staff of CRC Sundernagar as per the
Revised Pay Rules of 2016 and the pay of the petitioner was
also revised/re-fixed.
18. It is also a matter of record that in the year 2020,
when information was sought by the Prime Minister's Office in
the course of review of Autonomous Bodies qua the sanctioned
regular strength of the staff therein, in terms of Annexure P-8,
the post being occupied by the petitioner was mentioned as a
regular post and the petitioner was reflected therein as serving
::: Downloaded on - 28/07/2026 20:07:14 :::CIS

11
against the said post. There was no mention against the name
High Court of H.P.
of the petitioner that he was serving on contract basis etc. or
that element of permanency was not there with the said post.
19. The very fact that the petitioner was serving against
the post from 2005 upto 2022, when the impugned order was
passed is demonstrative of the fact that there was permanency
attached with the post in issue. Otherwise also, it is not the
case of the respondents that the Center, in which, the petitioner
was appointed, was ordered to be wound up etc. The above
thus clearly demonstrates that the act of termination of the
service of the petitioner was an arbitrary act.
20. Incidentally, it is not as if the petitioner was
appointed against the post through a back-door entry. He
participated in an open process, on the basis of an
advertisement issued by the respondents, in which, many
others also participated. He was recruited on the basis of a
selection process. He was recruited as he faced the selection
process successfully, as he was fulfilling the eligibility criteria
which was mentioned in the employment notification.

::: Downloaded on - 28/07/2026 20:07:14 :::CIS

12
21. Therefore, in these circumstances, the issuance of
High Court of H.P.
the impugned order by mentioning that his services are no
longer required and therefore, were being terminated, is not
sustainable in law.
22. The order of termination is a non-speaking order; it
does not reflect any reason as to why the services of the
petitioner were being terminated after 17 years of service with
the Center. It is not the stand of the respondents that this was
on account of some misconduct on the part of the petitioner etc.
The petitioner, having rendered 17 valuable years of his service
to the Center, did not deserve such treatment. In fact, in light of
the fact that the petitioner was serving in the Department for 17
years, which was demonstrative of the fact that the post against
which the petitioner was serving was a regular post, as is also
otherwise evident from Annexure P-8, the services of the
petitioner ought to have been regularized by the respondents.
23. At this stage, this Court would like to refer to certain
judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.


::: Downloaded on - 28/07/2026 20:07:14 :::CIS

13
24. Honorable Supreme Court of India in Jaggo versus
High Court of H.P.
Union of India and others, 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 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.
::: Downloaded on - 28/07/2026 20:07:14 :::CIS

14
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, 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 held that it is imperative for
High Court of H.P.
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 employees morale. By ensuring fair employment
::: Downloaded on - 28/07/2026 20:07:14 :::CIS

15
practices, Government institutions can reduce the burden of
High Court of H.P.
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.
25. 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
::: Downloaded on - 28/07/2026 20:07:14 :::CIS

16
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
"adhocism" 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.”

26. In Bhola Nath Versus the State of Jharkhand & Ors.,
High Court of H.P.
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
::: Downloaded on - 28/07/2026 20:07:14 :::CIS

17
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: -
High Court of H.P.
"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 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
::: Downloaded on - 28/07/2026 20:07:14 :::CIS

18
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 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.
High Court of H.P.
::: Downloaded on - 28/07/2026 20:07:14 :::CIS

19
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.
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.
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
High Court of H.P.
::: Downloaded on - 28/07/2026 20:07:14 :::CIS

20
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 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
High Court of H.P.
::: Downloaded on - 28/07/2026 20:07:14 :::CIS

21
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.”

High Court of H.P.
27. Thus, in terms of the above-mentioned judgments
of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, also the act of the
respondents of terminating the services of the petitioner, rather
than regularizing his services, is not sustainable in the eyes of
law.
28. It is again reiterated that the petitioner having been
appointed against the post by way of an open competition,
having faced the scrutiny of the selection committee, as he was
fulfilling the educational qualifications and thereafter having
worked for 17 years with the Department did not deserve
termination, more so, when there was no allegation of any
misconduct, etc., against him. He was entitled for regularization
::: Downloaded on - 28/07/2026 20:07:14 :::CIS

22
of services as none can be allowed to be continued in service
High Court of H.P.
in perpetuity on contract basis without there being any certainty
of the permanency of the job.
29. Accordingly, in light of the above observations, this
writ petition is allowed. Impugned Annexure P-10 dated
20.09.2022 is quashed and set aside. Respondents are
directed to allow the petitioner to discharge his duties as
Orientation and Mobility Instructor at Composite Regional
Centre for Persons with Disabilities at Sundernagar.
Respondents are further directed to regularize the services of
the petitioner against the said post as from the date of this
judgment prospectively with all consequential benefits.
30. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also
stand disposed of.
(Ajay Mohan Goel)
Judge
July 28, 2026
(Vinod)
::: Downloaded on - 28/07/2026 20:07:14 :::CIS