The Himachal Pradesh High Court has granted relief to the employees of Special Area Development Authorities who received delayed regularization orders. The High Court noted that it took two years for the State Government to create the posts, even though such creation was imminent.

The petitions before the High Court were filed by the employees of Special Area Development Authorities (SADA).

The Single Bench of Justice Satyen Vaidya said, “In the above backdrop, it becomes clear that despite imminent requirement and need for creation of posts in SADAs, the respondents had delayed the creation of posts inordinately.”

“It took two years for the State Government to create the posts, whereas, such creation was imminent as is evident from the records. The SADAs were constituted without there being any provision for work force. Petitioners and others were engaged on contractual basis. 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”, it further added.

Advocate B.S. Attri represented the Petitioners while Deputy Advocate General Gautam Sood represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

All the petitioners were initially engaged on a contract basis. Their services were regularised w.e.f. August 25, 2015. The Petitioners sought their regularisation in terms of the relevant regularization policy of the State Government, which provided for consideration of the services of contractual employees for regularisation on completion of six years of contractual service. As per the Respondents, the petitioners had accepted the regularization of their services w.e.f. August 25, 2015, without any objection and hence they couldn’t go back on the terms and conditions of their regularization.

Reasoning

The High Court noted that the State Government has been coming up with repeated regularization norms for its contractual employees, and one such communication was a 2013 communication from the Principal Secretary (Personnel) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh conveying the decision of the State Government to regularize the services of all such contractual appointees who had completed six years of contract service. Prior to these communications also, the regularization norms had also been notified by the State Government for regularization of its contractual employees from time to time.

It was noticed that the petitioners had completed more than six years of contract services as on March 31, 2013. Coming to the facts of the case, the Bench noted that the different SADAs had sent requisitions for the creation of posts in the year 2013. The said requisitions were forwarded to the Secretary, Town and Country Planning, Himachal Pradesh, by the Director, Town and Country Planning, followed by repeated reminders. Another communication with respect to the creation of posts for contractual employees of the SADAs was made by the Director, Town and Country Planning, to the Principal Secretary, Town and Country Planning. Efforts thereafter fructified only in the year 2015 when the approval for the creation of 26 posts was accorded by the Government of Himachal Pradesh.

On the issue of limitation, the Bench held that the cases of the petitioners were considered in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, where no specific limitation is provided. “It cannot be overlooked that the petitioners were already sufferers of undue bargaining power held by the employer. Once, they got delayed orders of regularization in their favor, it must have taken quite a time for them to have mustered courage to stand against their employer”, it observed.

The Bench further noted that the petitioners were regularized in the month of August, 2015. These petitions had been filed in May, 2019, and the petitions couldn’t be said to be inordinately delayed. There was nothing on record to suggest that the petitioners had abandoned their rights at any stage.

Thus, allowing the Petition, the Bench ordered, “The respondents are directed to regularize the services of petitioners from 01.04.2013 in terms of communication dated 04.04.2013 (Annexure R-2). It is, however, clarified that the petitioners will get only notional benefits for the purpose of seniority and will not be entitled to any monetary benefits.”

Cause Title: Rajeev Sharma v. State of H.P. and others (Neutral Citation: 2025:HHC:14738)

Appearance

Petitioners: Advocates B.S. Attri, Ashish Verma

Respondents: Deputy Advocate General Gautam Sood, Advocate Anil Chauhan

Click here to read/download Order


Himachal Pradesh High CourtJustice Satyen Vaidya

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.