The Himachal Pradesh High Court has reaffirmed the principle that public authorities must treat similarly situated employees equally when granting regularization and retrospective benefits. In a writ petition seeking parity with a prior judgment, the Court directed the State to adjudicate the petitioner’s claim in light of established precedent, emphasizing non-discrimination and procedural fairness.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Prem Singh Shandil, sought regularization of his services as a Clerk with retrospective effect from 21.12.2002, the date he was allegedly appointed. He contended that his case was identical to that of Sh. Ram Karan Verma, who had been granted retrospective regularization and consequential benefits by this Court in CWP No. 4474 of 2020. The petitioner argued that denying him similar relief violated the principle of equality under Article 14 of the Constitution.
Key Facts
- The petitioner was appointed as a Clerk on 21.12.2002 on a contractual or temporary basis.
- He was never regularized despite continuous service.
- Sh. Ram Karan Verma, a similarly placed employee, was granted retrospective regularization effective from 21.12.2002 by this Court’s judgment dated 09.12.2022 in CWP No. 4474 of 2020.
- The regularization of Ram Karan Verma was based on the precedent set in Harsh Gupta v. Secretary, Urban Development & Others (CWP No. 3877 of 2011), decided on 15.09.2014.
- On 12.06.2023, the State authorities implemented the Ram Karan Verma judgment by granting retrospective promotion and benefits to Ram Karan Verma.
- The petitioner made no formal representation prior to filing this writ petition.
Procedural History
- 21.12.2002: Petitioner appointed as Clerk on temporary basis.
- 15.09.2014: Harsh Gupta judgment delivered, establishing legal basis for retrospective regularization.
- 09.12.2022: Coordinate Bench of this Court decided Ram Karan Verma v. State of H.P. (CWP No. 4474 of 2020), directing regularization with retrospective effect.
- 12.06.2023: State issued order conferring retrospective benefits upon Ram Karan Verma.
- 2025: Petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 1363 of 2025 before the High Court seeking identical relief.
- 26.05.2026: Judgment delivered by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel.
The Parties' Positions
For the Petitioner: Argued that he is identically situated to Ram Karan Verma - same designation, same date of appointment, same nature of service, and same administrative context. Relied on Harsh Gupta and Ram Karan Verma judgments to assert his right to equal treatment under Article 14. Submitted that denial of relief is arbitrary and discriminatory.
For the Respondents: Did not dispute the factual similarity but contended that the Authority must independently examine whether the petitioner meets the criteria under Harsh Gupta. Also raised the plea of delay, noting the petitioner had not approached the Court for over two years after Ram Karan Verma’s regularization.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought:
- Regularization of services with effect from 21.12.2002.
- Consequential benefits including pay, seniority, and pension.
- Arrears of pay with interest at 9% per annum.
- Direction to extend to him the same benefits granted to Ram Karan Verma under CWP No. 4474 of 2020.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether a public authority must extend the same regularization benefits to a similarly situated employee when a coordinate bench has already granted such benefits to another employee under identical circumstances, and whether the doctrine of equality under Article 14 of the Constitution mandates such parity.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner relied on the binding precedent of Ram Karan Verma v. State of H.P. (CWP No. 4474 of 2020) and the foundational Harsh Gupta judgment. He argued that the State had already accepted the legal principle in Harsh Gupta by implementing it for Ram Karan Verma. Denying him the same benefit, despite identical facts, amounted to arbitrariness and violation of equal protection of laws. He cited State of Haryana v. Bhagwan Das and K. S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India to reinforce that classification must be reasonable and non-arbitrary.
For the Respondent
The Deputy Advocate General conceded that the petitioner’s factual matrix resembled that of Ram Karan Verma but insisted that the Authority must independently verify eligibility under the Harsh Gupta framework. He emphasized that judicial orders do not automatically bind authorities to extend benefits without due process. He also invoked the doctrine of laches, arguing that the petitioner’s delay of over two years in filing the petition undermined his claim.
The Court's Analysis
The Court acknowledged that the petitioner and Ram Karan Verma were similarly situated in all material respects: same designation, same date of appointment, same department, and same administrative context. The Court noted that the State had already acted upon the Harsh Gupta precedent by granting retrospective regularization to Ram Karan Verma. To deny the same benefit to the petitioner without any rational basis would violate Article 14.
"The principle of equality demands that where two persons are similarly situated, they must be treated alike, unless there is a reasonable classification. The State cannot selectively apply a judicial precedent to one and deny it to another on the same facts."
The Court rejected the argument that the Authority must conduct a fresh inquiry in isolation. Once the legal principle is settled and implemented for one, it must be extended to others in the same category. However, the Court accepted the plea of delay and held that if the petitioner is found eligible, monetary benefits shall be confined to three years prior to the filing of the writ petition. This balances the right to equality with the principle that equitable relief cannot be granted for indefinite past periods.
The Verdict
The petitioner succeeded. The Court directed the State authority to decide the petitioner’s case in accordance with the Harsh Gupta judgment and the precedent set in Ram Karan Verma. If found similarly situated, the petitioner shall be granted regularization with effect from 21.12.2002, along with consequential benefits. Any monetary entitlement, including arrears and interest, shall be limited to the three years preceding the filing of the writ petition on 2025. The authority shall complete the adjudication within eight weeks.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Equal Treatment Is Not Optional
- Public employers cannot selectively implement judicial orders granting regularization or retrospective benefits.
- Once a coordinate bench has laid down a legal principle and the administration acts upon it for one employee, it must extend the same to all similarly placed employees.
- Denial of parity without objective justification violates Article 14 and invites judicial intervention.
Delay Limits Monetary Relief, Not Entitlement
- While delay does not bar a claim for regularization or status, it does restrict the period for which arrears and interest can be claimed.
- Practitioners must advise clients to file claims promptly; otherwise, even valid claims may yield only three years of back pay.
- The three-year cap applies from the date of filing, not from the date of appointment or judgment.
Precedent Must Be Applied Consistently
- Administrative bodies must treat judicial precedents as binding frameworks, not discretionary options.
- When a court has clarified the scope of eligibility (e.g., under Harsh Gupta), authorities must apply it uniformly across all cases meeting the criteria.
- Failure to do so exposes the State to repeated litigation and adverse findings.
