State Depriving Employees From Just Claims By Initially Making Temporary Appointments: Himachal Pradesh High Court Allows HRTC Employees Plea For Regularization

The Petitioners had approached the High Court seeking the quashing of the impugned office orders and a direction to the respondent, HRTC (Himachal Road Transport Corporation), to regularize their services upon completion of eight years from the date of their initial appointment.

The Division Bench of Justice Vivek Singh Thakur and Justice Ranjan Sharma observed, “ Despite having bestowed status of custodian of rights of its citizens, State or its functionaries invariably are adopting exploitative method in the field of public employment to avoid its liabilities, depriving the persons employed from their just claims and benefits by making initial appointments on temporary basis, i.e. contract, adhoc, tenure, daily-wage etc., in order to shirk from its responsibility and delay the conferment of work-charge status or extension of benefits of regularization Policy of the State by not notifying Policies in this regard in future. Present case is also an example of such practice.”

Advocate Manohar Lal Sharma represented the Petitioners while Advocate Shubh Mahajan represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

Services of the petitioners were terminated by HRTC on different dates, and, against such termination, the petitioners had approached the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labor Court. The Labor Court passed an Award in favor of the petitioners, directing their reinstatement with seniority and continuity of service, effective retrospectively, but without back wages. Consequently, the petitioners were reinstated. However, the benefit of regularization was not extended to the petitioners on completion of eight years of service. Therefore, the petitioners approached the erstwhile HP State Administrative Tribunal by filing Original Applications.

Respective representations preferred by the petitioners were decided by HRTC, vide impugned orders, and the claim of the petitioners was rejected. Reference was made to the judgment passed by the High Court in Rishi v. Himachal Road Transport Corporation and others (2013).

Reasoning

Referring to the order rejecting the petitioners’ claim, the Bench said, “The rejection order is glaring example of complete nonapplication of mind, much less judicious mind.” The only reason given for differentiating and distinguishing cases of the petitioners from Rishi’s case was that in Rishi’s case, there was a direction to regularize Rishi by mentioning a specific date, but no such specific date was mentioned in the orders passed in cases of the present petitioners. The Bench was of the view that the specific date of completion of eight years shall be and is to be determined/ascertained based on the dates of initial appointment of petitioners, which were and are available with the respondent-Corporation.

The Bench thus found the grounds raised by the HRTC to be meritless and also held that HRTC would be precluded from raising any other objection, being inhibited from doing so for not raising any other objection at the time of rejection of the claim of the petitioners. Reliance was placed upon the ruling in Mohinder Singh Gill and another Vs. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and others (1978) wherein it has been held that reasons are not like wine which matures over a period of time.

Coming to the issue of delay and laches, the Bench said, “It is settled that though law of Limitation is not applicable, however principle of delay and laches is attracted for adjudication of a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and a petitioners may be ousted or deprived from monetary benefits or interest on delayed payment for delay and laches in appropriate case.”

“Therefore, we are of the considered view that petitioners, in present appeal, are not liable to be deprived of monetary benefits from due date, on the ground of delay and laches. But they shall not be entitled for interest on delayed payment and actual monetary benefits are to be granted with reference to date of initiation of first proceeding/petition, claiming relief prayed in present matter”, it added.

Thus, allowing the Petitions, the Bench ordered, “...respondent-Corporation is directed to regularize the services of the petitioners on completion of 8 years of daily wage service from initial date of appointment with all consequential benefits, and issue appropriate orders for the said purpose with all consequential benefits. However, the actual monetary benefits are ordered to be extended to the petitioners for three years prior to filing of the present petitions, and prior to that the monetary benefits shall be on notional basis.”

Cause Title: Hem Chand v. Himachal Road Transport Corporation (Neutral Citation: 2025:HHC:16059)

Appearance

Petitioners: Advocates Manohar Lal Sharma, Himanshu Kapila

Respondent: Advocates Shubh Mahajan, B.N. Sharma, Mamta, Raman Jamalta, Aashima Premy, Vikas Rajput

Click here to read/download Order