AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge
By way of this petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following relief:-
“I. That Your Lordships may graciously be pleased to issue the Writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ of direction, directing the respondents to regularize the service of the petitioner either as electrician -cum-pump operator as has been recommended by the Competent Authority or as clerk as he is fully eligible for the same with all consequential benefit from due date i.e. on completion of requisite number of years service, in view of the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.”
Facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that the petitioner, who has done 10+2 and also possesses one year diploma in electrical supervision, was appointed as a Pump Operator-cum-Electrician in the Indira Gandhi State Sports Complex, Shimla, on honorarium basis of Rs.2,000/- per month in the year 2005. This honorarium was revised from time to time and at the time of the filing of the petition, the honorarium of the petitioner was Rs.20,000/- per month. In nutshell, the grievance of the petitioner is that despite his rendering more than 17 years service and being eligible for regularization either against the post of Clerk or Electrician-cum-Pump Operator in light of his qualifications, as also length of service, his services are not being regularized.
Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner besides possessing the 10+2 qualification also possesses a diploma in electrical supervision, a one year diploma of Steno-Typist in English and one year diploma in Computer Applications. Learned Senior Counsel further argued that the petitioner made a representation to respondent No.2 for the regularization of his services in light of the experience possessed as well as his qualifications vide Annexure P-3. The case of the petitioner was duly forwarded to respondent No.1 with a strong recommendation for regularization as Pump Operator-cum-Electrician vide Annexure P-4, i.e. communication dated 15.02.2015. He submitted that despite the fact that the petitioner is performing his duties to the best of his abilities and his case stands recommended by the competent Authority for regularization of his services, till date, nothing has been done by the Authorities. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that the very fact that the petitioner is performing his duties since the year 2005, demonstrates that there is an element of permanancy attached with the job which is being performed by the petitioner. He further submitted that the Sports Complex where the petitioner is rendering his service is a State owned Sports Complex, which is under the direct supervision of the Youth Services and Sports Department of the Government of Himachal Pradesh. He submitted that in this backdrop, the denial of regularization of his services by the respondents is totally arbitrary and discriminatory.
On the other learned Additional Advocate General has argued that there is no merit in the writ petition. By referring to the reply filed by the respondents, he submitted that the Sports Complex constructed by the Government of Himachal Pradesh is being looked after by a Managing Committee which has been constituted in terms of Notification dated 27.11.1998 (Annexure R-1). He submitted that the petitioner was appointed as a Pump Operator-cum-Electrician in the said Complex by the Managing Committee initially for a period of one year vide order dated 31.10.2005. The period of engagement was extended from time to time and the services of the petitioner were hired by the Managing Committee of the Sports Complex and not by the Youth Services and Sports Department of the State. Learned Additional Advocate General further argued that the case of the petitioner for regularization as a Pump Operator was forwarded by respondent No.3 to respondent No.2 and the Administrative Department took up the matter with the Finance Department, but the Finance Department regretted to concur with the proposal of the regularization of the petitioner. He argued that the petitioner was well aware of the terms and conditions on which he was appointed and was also aware that he was not engaged by the Department of the State Government, but by the Managing Committee of the Sports Complex. He argued that the appointment of the petitioner was on an honorarium, which has been enhanced from time to time and in light of the fact that there is no regular post of a Pump Operator in the Sports Complex, the petitioner is not entitled for regularization.
In rebuttal, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been serving in the Sports Complex for more than two decades now. He argued that the petitioner has now become overage and is not eligible for seeking appointment in any other Government service. Learned Senior Counsel also argued that the justification of the regularization of the petitioner has been duly substantiated by the Administrative Department and simply because the Finance Department is not concurring with the proposal, this does not mean that the petitioner does not have any right of regularization.
I have heard learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner as also learned Additional Advocate General and have also carefully gone through the pleadings and documents on record.
When this case was heard on 02.04.2026, this Court passed the following order:
“Heard for some time.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner has referred to Annexure R-2 appended with the reply filed to the petition in terms of which communication, the Director of Youth Services and Sports, Himachal Pradesh, had recommended to the Principal Secretary (YSS) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh for regularization of the petitioner by way of creation of a post on the analogy of the Himachal Pradesh Sports Council.
Learned Counsel has submitted that the petitioner since his engagement in the year 2005 has been diligently working with respondent No. 3 and in these circumstances, act of the respondents of not regularizing the services of the petitioner is highly arbitrary and discriminatory.
Learned Additional Advocate General to have instructions as to why can’t the services of the petitioner be regularized in light of the fact that he has been serving with respondent No. 3 since the year 2005 which is demonstrative of the fact that the kind of work which is being extracted from the petitioner is not only available but there is permanency attached to the kind of work being performed by the petitioner.
List on 23.04.2026. Instructions be obtained in the meanwhile. Respondents are expected to take a sympathetic view in the matter.”
Thereafter, learned Deputy Advocate General handed over instructions which were taken on record.
On 08.07.2026, this Court passed the following order:-
“Heard for some time. Learned Additional Advocate General is directed to assist the Court on the issue as to what is the Cadre Strength of Indira Gandhi Sports Complex, Shimla and who stands appointed there, be it on regular basis or on daily wage basis and regular incumbents serving there are under the control of which Wing of the Government. As prayed for, needful be done by the next date of hearing.
List on 21.07.2026.”
On 21.07.2026, the following order was passed:-
“Learned Additional Advocate General in compliance to the last order handed over instructions dated 17.07.2026, which read as under:-
“Kindly refer to your letter No. CWP 916/2023 dated 09th July, 2026 on the subject cited above.
2.In this regard, it is respectfully submitted that the present instruction is with regards to the order passed by the Hon'ble High Court of H.P vide order dated 08.07.2026. That Hon'ble Court passed the following order are as under:
“Heard for some time. Learned Additional Advocate General is directed to assist the court on the issue as to what is the Cadre Strength of Indira Gandhi Sports Complex, Shimla and who stands appointed there, be it on regular basis or on daily wage basis and regular incumbents serving there are under the control of which wing of the Government. As prayed for, needful be done by the next date of hearing. List on 21.07.2026."
3.In this regards it is submitted that the Cadre Strength of Indira Gandhi State Sports complex is as under:
Sr.No . Name of posts Sanctioned strength (posts) Incumbency (filled up Posts Vacant 1. Deputy Director 01 - 01 2. Coach 01 02 - 3. Junior Coach 10 06 04 4. Junior Office Assist.(IT) 01 - 01 5. Attendant 02 02 - 6. Peon 01 01 - 4.It is pertinent to mentioned that the descriptions of the staff's as per Para supra will be as under:
i.The post of Deputy Director is filled up from amongst the District Youth Services & Sports Officer who has completed his five years regular services on the post of DYSSO, at present no DYSSO is eligible for promotion to the post of Deputy Director. Hence charge of the post of Deputy Director hasbeen assigned to Sh. Anurag Verma DYSSO Head Quarter as time gap arrangement.
ii.The incumbency of these posts is tabulated as under:
Sr.No. Name & Designation Date of joining 1. Sh. Satish Kumar, Coach (Volley Ball) 13.02.2020 2. Sh. Ashwani Kumar, Coach (Teakwando) 29.09.2007 3. Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Jr. Coach (Judo) 09.10.2023 4. Sh. Sunny Papta, Jr. Coach (Badminton) 09.08.2016 5. Sh. Nitish Sharma, Jr. Coach (Fitness)) 17.08.2016 6. Sh. Ravinder Prakash (shooting) 27.09.2016 7. Sh. Ajay Thakur, Jr. Coach (Karate) 10.09.2016 8. Sh. Dinesh Kumar, Jr. Coach (Boxing) 14.06.2021 9. Sh. Sanjeev Kumar, Attendant 10.11.1997 10. Sh. Sudesh Kumar, Attendant 01.03.2019 11. Sh. Mukesh Kumar, Peon 17.04.2006 iii. That the post of JOA(IT) is lying vacant due to the resignation of Sh. Vinay Kumar on 31.12.2024.5. addition to above the services of 3 Chowkidar-cum-Mali-cum-Sweeper and 1 Sweeper is also hired on outsource basis with prior approval of State government. Currently the following person are in position: Sr.No. Name Date pf Deployment 1. Name 01.11.2017 2. Rita Devi 14.07.2023 3. Ramesh Kumar 06.11.2025 4. Roop Chand 01.12.2021 6.Furthermore one Sh. Sunil Kumar Electrician-Cum-pump operator has been engaged through Personnel Ledger Account (PLA) by the Indira Gandhi State Sports Complex management committee w.e. f 01-11-2005 on honorarium basis.
7.That all the above named persons at para-4 are appointed on regular basis and para 5 on outsource basis under the control of Youth, Services & Sports Department, Himachal Pradesh so far. The person mentioned at para-6 has been engaged by the IGSSC committee and is under control of said committee.
8.The services of T.T. Coach Sh. Abhay Lakhanpal has also been outsourced as stop gap arrangement and is being paid from internal sources of H.P. Sports Council. You are, therefore, requested that the Hon'ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh may kindly be apprised about the above stated facts.” Now list the matter for consideration on 11th August, 2026.”
The facts which have been mentioned hereinabove, demonstrate that it is admitted on behalf of the respondents also that the Sports Complex stands constructed by the Government of Himachal Pradesh. Simply, because as per the respondents, the Complex is being managed by a Managing Committee which has been constituted in terms of Notification dated 27.11.1998, the same does not mean that the Sports Complex loses its identity as a Government Sports Complex.
In this backdrop, here is a case where there is an incumbent serving in a Sports Complex, which is a Government Sports Complex, for the last 20 years on an honorarium which has been increased from time to time and till date his services have not been regularized.
In fact, a perusal of Annexure P-4 demonstrates that on the representation of the petitioner, Deputy Director, Sports Complex had written to the Director, Youth Services and Sports in the favour of the petitioner regarding his qualifications, sincerity as well as honesty with which he was serving for more than 10 years at the time when Annexure P-4 was issued. Accordingly, the Deputy Director strongly recommended the case of the petitioner for regularization as a Pump Operator.
The Cadre strength of Indira Gandhi State Sports Complex, which has been mentioned in order dated 21.07.2026 also demonstrates that there are posts of Attendants and Peons in addition to the posts of Deputy Director and Coaches in the said Complex. The Complex obviously requires the services of the Pump Operator because, otherwise, there was no occasion for the respondents to have had retained the petitioner as a Pump Operator for more than 20 years.
At this stage, this Court would like to refer to certain judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, which have been recently passed on the issue of regularization.
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Jaggo Versus Union of India & Ors., 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.
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 has held that it is imperative for 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 employee’s morale. By ensuring fair employment practices, Government institutions can reduce the burden of 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.
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 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 "ad-hocism" 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.”
In Bhola Nath Versus the State of Jharkhand & Ors., 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 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: -
A reading of the aforesaid decisions brings forth the following features regarding the doctrine of legitimate expectation:
First, legitimate expectation must be based on a right as opposed to a mere hope, wish or anticipation:
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;
…
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.
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.
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 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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
In the aforesaid backdrop, we are unable to 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 clauses. 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 the Constitution.
In light of the judgments referred hereinabove, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the act of the respondents herein of not regularizing the services of the petitioner despite the fact that he has been rendering the services for the last 20 years is totally arbitrary and discriminatory. The Sports Complex where the petitioner is serving has been constructed by the State Government. In fact, it belongs to the State Government. It is being managed by a Managing Committee, which has been constituted by a Notification issued by the Hon’ble Governor of the State of Himachal Pradesh. By simply taking the excuse that the petitioner has been appointed by the Managing Committee of the Sports Complex, the respondents cannot shy away from their responsibility of regularizing the petitioner.
In fact, in terms of Annexure P-4, the Deputy Director concerned had favorably recommended the case of the petitioner to the Director for regularization and that too in the year 2016. Not only this, it is evident from the reply filed by the respondents that even the Administrative Department had taken up the case of the petitioner favorably but then, on account of the non-concurrence of the Finance Department, the services of the petitioner were not regularized.
As observed hereinabove also, the respondents cannot shy away from their obligation of regularizing the services of the petitioner by assigning the reasons as have been mentioned in the reply, because having served for more than 20 years, the petitioner cannot be kept in lurch forever and his services are required to be regularized.
Accordingly, this petition is allowed. Respondents are directed to regularize the services of the petitioner as from the date of the filing of the writ petition with all consequential benefits against the post of Pump Operator. In case there is a necessity of the creation of said post for the purpose of the regularization of the petitioner, then needful be done by the Authorities as expeditiously as possible, but the creation of the post and the regularization of the services of the petitioner with consequential benefits shall relate back to the date of filing of the writ petition.
With these observations, the petition stands disposed of, so also pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.