Introduction:

In State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. v. Bhupinder Singh Mehta & Ors. (LPA No. 841 of 2025), the Himachal Pradesh High Court, through a Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Gurmeet Singh Sandhawalia and Justice Bipin Chander Negi, delivered a significant judgment reinforcing the rights of long-serving contractual employees by upholding their regularisation, emphasizing that prolonged and continuous engagement coupled with repeated extensions of service gives rise to a legitimate expectation of regularisation, particularly when such employees perform essential and perennial functions integral to the functioning of the State; the case arose from an appeal filed by the State challenging a Single Judge’s direction to regularise the services of computer operators who had been working since 2004 under a Society implementing catchment area treatment plans and were subsequently re-engaged under the Compensatory Afforestation Fund Management and Planning Authority (CAMPA), with the State contending that their engagement was purely contractual and did not confer any right to regularisation, while the respondents argued that their continuous service spanning over two decades, the nature of their duties, and the State’s repeated extensions of their contracts created a legitimate expectation that their services would eventually be regularised, thereby necessitating judicial intervention to ensure fairness and prevent exploitation.

Arguments of the Appellants (State):

The State of Himachal Pradesh, as the appellant, sought to overturn the order of the Single Judge primarily on the ground that the respondents were engaged on a contractual basis and therefore had no legal right to claim regularisation, contending that their appointments were not made against sanctioned posts and were tied to specific schemes or projects, initially under a Society and later under CAMPA, which itself was a distinct entity, and therefore their engagement was inherently temporary and contingent upon the continuation of the schemes; the State relied heavily on the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi (2006), arguing that regularisation cannot be granted as a matter of course to employees who were not appointed through regular recruitment processes in accordance with constitutional requirements, and that granting such relief would amount to bypassing the established framework for public employment, thereby violating Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution; it was further contended that the respondents were aware of the terms of their engagement, which clearly specified the contractual nature of their employment and did not create any promise or assurance of regularisation, and that the repeated extensions of their contracts were merely administrative decisions taken to ensure continuity of work under the schemes, rather than an acknowledgment of any right to permanent employment; the State also argued that CAMPA, under which the respondents were later engaged, was not strictly equivalent to a regular government department, and therefore the nature of employment under it could not be equated with regular government service, and any direction to regularise such employees would impose an undue financial burden on the State and disrupt its кадров policies; additionally, the State maintained that the Single Judge had erred in applying the doctrine of legitimate expectation in the present case, as such expectation cannot override statutory provisions or constitutional principles governing public employment, and therefore the impugned order was liable to be set aside.

Arguments of the Respondents (Employees):

The respondents, who were the contractual computer operators, defended the Single Judge’s order and argued that their case was not one of backdoor entry or irregular appointment but of long-standing, continuous service rendered through a proper selection process, which distinguished their situation from those contemplated in the Uma Devi judgment; they submitted that they had been initially appointed in 2004 after due selection and had continued to work without interruption for more than two decades, performing the same duties even after the closure of the Society in 2012, when they were re-engaged by the Forest Department under CAMPA, thereby demonstrating that their work was not project-specific or temporary but perennial and essential to the functioning of the department; the respondents emphasized that the State had consistently relied on their services over the years, repeatedly extending their contracts and assigning them critical responsibilities, which created a reasonable and legitimate expectation that their services would eventually be regularised, particularly in the absence of any steps taken by the State to fill the positions through regular recruitment; they also argued that the State’s practice of keeping employees on contractual terms for extended periods without offering job security amounted to exploitation and was contrary to principles of fairness, equity, and good governance, and that such conduct warranted judicial intervention to protect the rights of workers who were in a position of unequal bargaining power; the respondents further contended that CAMPA functioned as an extension of the State, carrying out public duties and operating under governmental control, and therefore their engagement under CAMPA could not be treated as distinct from government service for the purpose of determining their entitlement to regularisation; they distinguished their case from the prohibition laid down in Uma Devi by highlighting that their appointments were not irregular or illegal but were made through a transparent process, and that their continued engagement over a long period justified an exception to the general rule against regularisation, particularly in light of the doctrine of legitimate expectation and the need to prevent arbitrary and unfair treatment by the State; on these grounds, they urged the Court to uphold the Single Judge’s order and grant them the relief of regularisation with consequential benefits.

Court’s Judgment:

The Himachal Pradesh High Court, after carefully considering the submissions of both parties and the factual matrix of the case, dismissed the State’s appeal and upheld the direction to regularise the services of the respondents, delivering a reasoned judgment that balanced constitutional principles with considerations of fairness and equity; the Court observed that the respondents had been engaged through a proper selection process and had rendered continuous service for over two decades, during which they performed essential and perennial functions that were integral to the functioning of the Forest Department, and that their re-engagement under CAMPA after the closure of the Society clearly indicated that their work was not temporary or scheme-specific but of a permanent nature; the Court rejected the State’s reliance on the Uma Devi judgment as a blanket bar to regularisation, emphasizing that the principles laid down therein cannot be applied mechanically without considering the factual context of each case, particularly where employees have been engaged for long periods through a legitimate process and have continued to serve the State in essential roles; the Court was critical of the State’s practice of engaging employees on a contractual basis for extended periods without initiating regular recruitment, describing it as exploitative and contrary to the principles of fairness and equality enshrined in the Constitution, and noting that such practices undermine the dignity of labour and create insecurity among workers; it further highlighted the unequal bargaining power between the State and contractual employees, observing that such workers often have no real choice but to accept unfavorable terms in order to secure their livelihood, and therefore the State cannot take advantage of this imbalance to deny them fair treatment; on the doctrine of legitimate expectation, the Court held that the respondents’ continuous engagement, coupled with repeated extensions and long years of service, created a reasonable expectation that the State would eventually recognise and regularise their services, and that this expectation was further reinforced by the fact that the respondents had continued in their roles, often foregoing other employment opportunities, in the belief that their contributions would be acknowledged; the Court also addressed the nature of CAMPA, holding that it functioned as an extension of the Government and carried out public duties, thereby bringing the respondents’ engagement within the broader framework of government service; in light of these findings, the Court concluded that there was no error in the Single Judge’s order directing regularisation, and that denying such relief would perpetuate injustice and exploitation, thereby dismissing the appeal and affirming the respondents’ entitlement to regularisation with all consequential benefits.