Not society employees, but State workers: HP High Court directs regularization of contract staff

Shimla, Sept 24

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has directed the State to regularize contractual employees engaged through the Himachal Pradesh Horticulture Development Society (HPHDS), ruling that the society is under complete control of the government and its employees cannot be denied the benefit of regularization.

Justice Sandeep Sharma, while pronouncing a common judgment in over 60 clubbed petitions including the lead case Nitin Thakur v. State of Himachal Pradesh, observed, “For all intents and purposes, the petitioners are under the control of the State and hence beneficial government policies regarding regularization are applicable to them as well.” He held that this was a fit case to “lift the corporate veil” as the society was created and run by the government to execute its own projects.

The Court noted that although the petitioners had been appointed on contract through the society, they were performing duties in the Directorate of Horticulture, HPMC, Agriculture Marketing Board, and horticulture universities. “The Government of Himachal Pradesh exercises complete control over the society, as it is owned, controlled and funded entirely by the State Government,” the judge observed, emphasizing that recruitment was conducted by the Department itself and appointments approved by top officials.

Appearing for the petitioners, Senior Advocates Sanjeev Bhushan, Sunil Mohan Goel, and Lovneesh Kanwar, along with C.N. Singh, Dr. Nidhi Singh, Devender K. Sharma, Anshul Gandhi, Ramesh Chand, Rakesh Chauhan and others, argued that denial of regularization amounted to exploitation and artificial discrimination. They cited earlier cases where employees of similar societies like HIMURJA, Sarv Shiksha Abhiyan, and the Natural Resource Management Society had been absorbed and later regularized.

Advocate General Anup Rattan, assisted by Additional Advocates General Rajan Kahol, Vishal Panwar, B.C. Verma and Deputy Advocate General Ravi Chauhan, countered that the petitioners were society employees engaged under World Bank-funded projects and had no enforceable right to absorption. He argued that their services were co-terminus with the projects and distinguished them from earlier cases where societies were directly funded by the State.

Rejecting this contention, Justice Sharma relied on precedents including Sant Ram v. State of H.P., where similar employees were ordered to be regularized and the judgment upheld by the Supreme Court. The Court also referred to government policies framed in 2007, 2008 and 2009, which extended regularization after completion of two years of contractual service.

Directing the State to extend the same benefit to the petitioners, the Court concluded that they cannot be denied parity merely because they were shown to be working under a society. “Petitioners, though employed in a society and that too for a project, are actually employees of the State Government and working for the advancement of its policies for betterment of horticulturists in Himachal Pradesh,” Justice Sharma ruled.