The Himachal Pradesh High Court has affirmed that when a government department admits that a contractual employee’s case is identical to a previously decided precedent, it cannot later evade relief on grounds of pending litigation that has since concluded. This judgment enforces the principle of consistency in administrative action and mandates equitable treatment under established departmental policies.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, a contractual employee, was engaged as a Data Entry Operator on a non-permanent basis. He sought regularization of his service after completing six years of continuous contractual employment, commencing on 01.01.2016, in accordance with the regularization policy framed by the respondent department (Annexure P-5). He also sought re-fixation of pay, payment of all consequential benefits, and equal pay and perks from the date of his initial appointment as a peon-cum-watchman on contract, in line with the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence on equal pay for equal work.
Key Facts
- The petitioner was engaged on contractual basis as a Data Entry Operator from 01.01.2016
- He had previously filed a writ petition before the High Court, which was disposed of on 15.05.2024 (Annexure P-16) with directions to the authority to decide his representation within six weeks
- The authority passed an order on 03.10.2024 (Annexure P-18) acknowledging that the petitioner’s case was "squarely covered" by the judgment in Sant Ram and another v. State of H.P. and others (CWPOA No. 3562 of 2019), decided on 06.09.2022
- The authority deferred action pending the outcome of a Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed against the Sant Ram judgment in the Supreme Court
- The SLP and its review petition were subsequently dismissed by the Supreme Court, rendering the Sant Ram judgment final and binding
Procedural History
- 01.01.2016: Petitioner commenced contractual service as Data Entry Operator
- Before 15.05.2024: First writ petition filed before the High Court
- 15.05.2024: High Court disposed of the first petition with direction to decide representation within six weeks (Annexure P-16)
- 03.10.2024: Competent authority issued order (Annexure P-18) admitting similarity with Sant Ram case but deferring action due to pending SLP in Supreme Court
- Prior to 15.05.2026: Supreme Court dismissed the SLP and review petition in Sant Ram case, finalizing the precedent
- 15.05.2026: Present writ petition (CWP No. 8136 of 2025) heard and decided by the High Court
The Parties' Positions
For the Petitioner: Argued that the department had already conceded the similarity of his case with Sant Ram, and with the Supreme Court having finally disposed of the SLP, the department was estopped from denying relief. He relied on the doctrine of promissory estoppel and the principle of equal treatment under Article 14 of the Constitution.
For the Respondents: Initially deferred action citing pendency of SLP in the Supreme Court. In their reply filed before the High Court, they attempted to distinguish the petitioner’s case from Sant Ram, a stance the Court found contradictory and impermissible.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought:
- Regularization of his contractual service w.e.f. 01.01.2016
- Re-fixation of pay and payment of all consequential benefits
- Equal pay and perks from the date of initial appointment as peon-cum-watchman
- 12% interest on arrears
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether a government department, having admitted in writing that a contractual employee’s case is identical to a binding judicial precedent, can later refuse to extend the same relief on the ground that the precedent was under challenge in the Supreme Court - when that challenge has since been dismissed.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner’s counsel argued that the authority’s own order dated 03.10.2024 constituted a clear admission that the petitioner’s case was "squarely covered" by Sant Ram v. State of H.P.. The department’s subsequent attempt to distinguish the cases was a classic case of approbation and reprobation. The dismissal of the SLP and review petition by the Supreme Court rendered the Sant Ram judgment final and binding. The petitioner relied on State of H.P. v. Krishan Lal and Union of India v. Rameshwar Prasad to argue that administrative bodies cannot play fast and loose with their own admissions. He further invoked Article 14 and the doctrine of legitimate expectation.
For the Respondent
The respondents contended that since the Sant Ram judgment was under challenge in the Supreme Court at the time of the 03.10.2024 order, the department was justified in withholding regularization until finality. They argued that the dismissal of the SLP did not automatically trigger relief, and that each case must be independently adjudicated. However, they offered no substantive grounds to distinguish the petitioner’s facts from those in Sant Ram.
The Court's Analysis
The Court observed that the department’s own order dated 03.10.2024 was not a mere observation but a formal admission that the petitioner’s case was identical to Sant Ram. The department cannot now be permitted to disown its own admission merely because the Supreme Court has finally disposed of the challenge to the precedent. The Court emphasized that administrative fairness demands consistency, especially when the delay in decision-making was caused by the department’s own reliance on pending litigation.
"It is evident from the decision of the Competent Authority that, it stood admitted by the Department that the case of the petitioner was not different from that of Sant Ram. That being the case, now the respondent-Department cannot be allowed to take the plea that the case of the petitioner is fundamentally different from that of Sant Ram, as is the stand taken in the reply, which is hereby rejected."
The Court held that the dismissal of the SLP and review petition in Sant Ram removed the only legal barrier that had been cited for non-action. The department’s inaction for over two years, despite its own admission, could not be permitted to prejudice the petitioner. The Court further noted that the petitioner had been performing the same duties as regular employees for six years, and the principle of equal pay for equal work under Article 14 required equitable treatment.
The Court rejected the notion that finality of a precedent requires a fresh adjudication when the facts are indistinguishable. The doctrine of res judicata by analogy, coupled with the principles of natural justice and legitimate expectation, compelled the Court to enforce the department’s own admission.
The Verdict
The petition was allowed. The Court directed the respondents to regularize the petitioner’s contractual service w.e.f. 01.01.2016, with all consequential benefits including pay fixation, seniority, and service benefits. The petitioner is entitled to notional and actual benefits for the three years preceding the filing of his first writ petition. The department must compute and pay all arrears within three months from the date of judgment. No separate interest was awarded as the relief was framed in terms of full consequential benefits.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Administrative Admissions Are Binding
- Government departments cannot admit similarity with a precedent in internal orders and later deny relief on technical grounds after the precedent becomes final
- Such conduct violates the doctrine of promissory estoppel and amounts to arbitrariness under Article 14
Finality of Precedent Triggers Automatic Entitlement
- When a higher court’s judgment becomes final (SLP dismissed), and an administrative body has previously acknowledged factual identity, relief must follow without requiring a fresh petition
- Practitioners may now cite this judgment to argue that delay caused by pending litigation cannot be used to deny legitimate expectations
Three-Year Backpay Window Is Recognized
- The Court’s recognition of three years preceding the first petition as the period for consequential benefits sets a practical benchmark for similar cases
- This provides clarity on the temporal scope of arrears in regularization matters where delay is attributable to the state
