In a significant ruling, the Himachal Pradesh High Court emphasized that a delay by the State in creating sanctioned posts cannot be a reason to deny regularization rights to contractual employees who have already fulfilled the required period of service.
Justice Satyen Vaidya, while addressing petitions filed by Rajeev Sharma and others, stated:
Read Also:- Court Rules Director of Govt Department Ineligible to Act as Arbitrator in Contract Dispute
“Had the posts been created within reasonable time, the petitioners would have been eligible for regularization even in terms of the communication dated 4.4.2013 as all of them had completed six years of service as on 31.3.2013.”
Background of the Case
The petitioners were employed under various Special Area Development Authorities (SADAs), which function under the Himachal Pradesh Town and Country Planning Act. These bodies are responsible for planning and managing infrastructure in designated areas.
Initially hired on a contractual basis, the petitioners were only regularized on 25th August 2015, despite fulfilling the required six years of service well before March 2013. They approached the High Court seeking retrospective regularization from April 2013 based on the government’s policy issued on 4th April 2013, which granted regularization to employees who had completed six years of continuous service by 31st March 2013.
State’s Stand
The government argued that the petitioners had already accepted regularization in 2015 and couldn’t now seek retrospective benefits. It was also contended that regularization depended on availability of sanctioned posts, which weren’t in place until May 2015.
Court’s Observation
The Court rejected the government’s reasoning, highlighting that requisitions for creating posts were sent as early as 2013, followed by repeated reminders. Despite this, the final approval came two years later, in May 2015.
The judgment referenced a prior case, Ram Singh & Another v. State of H.P., where it was held:
“Delay in creation of posts cannot affect the rights of the daily wage or contract employees for consideration of regularisation on completion of the requisite period.”
The Court further acknowledged that the petitioners had served diligently, were selected through proper procedures, and their services were genuinely required.
The Court allowed the petitions and ruled:
“The respondents are directed to regularize the services of petitioners from 01.04.2013 in terms of communication dated 04.04.2013.”
Case Name: Rajeev Sharma V/s State of H.P. & Others, Beli Ram V/s State of H.P. & Others, Arun Kumar V/s State of H.P. & Others, Virender Kumar V/s State of H.P. & Others, Ashok Kumar V/s State of H.P. & Others
Case No.: CWPOA No. 6959 of 2020 a/w CWPOA Nos. 6963, 6966, 6967 and 6970 of 2020
