State's Delay In Creating Posts, Can't Deny Regularization Rights To Contractual Employees: Himachal Pradesh High Court

Himachal Pradesh High Court held that State's delay in creating posts, can't defeat the contractual employees right to regularization once they fulfill the prescribed period of service under the State's regularization policy.

Justice Satyen Vaidya: “Thus, 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 have completed 6 years of service as on 31.3.2013”.

Background:

The petitioners, in this case were employees of various Special Area Development Authorities. These Authorities were constituted under the Himachal Pradesh Town and Country Planning Act and were responsible for preparing development plans, implementing them after state government approval, acquiring land, constructing utilities, providing municipal services, and managing the special area as directed by the government. 

The petitioners were initially appointed on a contractual basis and their services were later regularised in 2015, pursuant to a notification issued by the Director, Town and Country Planning Department, Himachal Pradesh.

The petitioners filed writ petitions approaching the High Court seeking regularisation of their services with retrospective effect from the year 2013. Their claim was based on the regularisation policy issued by the State Government, which provided that all contractual employees who had completed six years of continuous contractual service as of 31^st March, 2013 would be eligible for regularisation.

Contentions:

The Respondents, Principal Secretary to the Government of Himachal Pradesh and the Secretary, Town and Country Planning, contended that the petitioners had already accepted their regularisation in 2015 without raising any objections. Therefore, they now can't seek retrospective benefits or challenge the conditions attached to their regularisation.

Subsequently, the Director, Town and Country Planning Department, Himachal Pradesh filed a separate response, stating that as per the policy, regularisation of contractual employees was based on the availability of sanctioned posts and was to be granted only when the posts were available.

It was further stated that by the Director that when the petitioners were engaged, there were no sanctioned posts in existence. Subsequent, requests were made for creation of posts by the Director to the Secretary, Town and Country Planning, Himachal Pradesh.

So, when the the Principal Secretary, Town and Country Planning conveyed the approval for the creation of 26 posts in different Special Area Development Authorities, the petitioners services were regularized with immediate effect from 25th August 2015.

Findings:

The Court remarked that all contractual employees had completed six years of continuous service by 31st March 2013 and were therefore eligible for regularisation in terms of the State Government's regularisation policy.

The Court Stated that various Special Area Development Authorities had submitted requisitions to the Secretary, Town and Country Planning for creation of posts in various Special Area Development Authorities from 2013 itself.

However, the approval for creation of posts was given by the Government of Himachal Pradesh, in 2015, two years later. Despite repeated reminders and imminent requirement, the authorities had delayed the creation of posts.

In Ram Singh and another v. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, the H.P. High Court held that “the delay in creation of posts cannot affect the rights of the daily wage or contract employees of consideration for regularisation on completion of the requisite period provided under the regularization norms of the State Government”

The Court held that it took two years for the State Government to create the posts, had the posts been created within reasonable time frame, the petitioners would have been eligible for regularisation in 2013 itself. Therefore, the delay on the part of the State authorities can't be used to defeat the rights of employees who had already completed the qualifying period of service.

Thus, the Court allowed the writ petitions and held that the contractual employees who have completed the prescribed of service of 6 years as per the applicable regularization policy are entitled to regularization from the date they fulfilled the criteria.

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

Date of Decision: 20.05.2025

For the petitioner(s): Mr. B.S. Attri, Advocate, with Mr. Ashish Verma, Advocate.

For the respondents: Mr. Gautam Sood, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents No. 1 and 2. Mr. Anil Chauhan, Advocate, for respondent No.3.

Click Here To Read/Download Order