The Himachal Pradesh High Court has affirmed that long-term daily wage employees who serve for eight years are entitled to regularization if their case is substantively identical to a previously adjudicated precedent. The judgment underscores the binding effect of judicial admissions by the State and reinforces the principle that identical factual matrices must receive identical legal outcomes.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, a daily wage worker employed by the State of Himachal Pradesh, sought regularization of his service after completing eight years of continuous daily wage employment commencing on 03.01.2008. He claimed entitlement to work charge status, consequential pay fixation, and equal benefits as granted to regular government employees, citing a prior judgment in Sant Ram and Another v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Others (CWPOA No. 3562 of 2019), which had granted identical relief to similarly situated workers.
Key Facts
- The petitioner was engaged as a daily wage worker on 03.01.2008 in the Forest Department
- He rendered continuous service without interruption for over eight years until the filing of the writ petition
- No formal appointment or regularization was granted despite prolonged service
- The petitioner made repeated representations for regularization, all of which remained unaddressed
- The State, in its written reply, admitted in Para 19 that the petitioner’s case was "similar" to that of Sant Ram
Procedural History
- 03.01.2008: Petitioner commenced daily wage service
- 2022: Sant Ram case decided by the High Court, granting regularization and consequential benefits to daily wage workers with eight years of service
- 2023: State filed Letters Patent Appeal against Sant Ram judgment; appeal dismissed
- 2024: State filed SLP in the Supreme Court (Diary No. 10840/2024)
- 26.04.2024: Supreme Court ordered status quo in the Sant Ram matter, but did not set aside the High Court’s judgment
- 2024: Present writ petition (CWP No. 3824 of 2024) filed before the Himachal Pradesh High Court
- 23.03.2026: Judgment delivered by Justice Ajay Mohan Goel
The Parties' Positions
For the Petitioner: Counsel argued that the State’s own admission in Para 19 of the reply established identity of facts between the petitioner and Sant Ram. Relied on the binding precedent of Sant Ram and the Supreme Court’s refusal to interfere with the High Court’s judgment, which rendered the status quo order irrelevant to the merits.
For the Respondents: The Additional Advocate General contended that the petitioner’s service conditions differed materially from Sant Ram’s, particularly in department, nature of duties, and administrative context. Argued that the Supreme Court’s status quo order implied doubt on the correctness of the Sant Ram judgment.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought:
- Regularization of service w.e.f. 03.01.2008 with work charge status
- Recalculation of pay and payment of all consequential benefits
- 12% interest on arrears from the date of entitlement
- Equal pay and perks as granted to regular employees
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the State’s judicial admission that the petitioner’s case is "similar" to Sant Ram binds it to grant the same relief, even if an SLP is pending before the Supreme Court with a status quo order.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
Counsel emphasized that the State’s reply, sworn on affidavit by a senior official, constituted a clear judicial admission under Section 58 of the Indian Evidence Act. Relied on Sant Ram as a binding precedent within the jurisdiction of the High Court. Argued that a status quo order from the Supreme Court merely preserves the existing position and does not nullify or stay the operative judgment of the High Court. Cited State of U.P. v. Krishna Kumar to affirm that admissions in pleadings are conclusive unless retracted with leave of court.
For the Respondent
The Additional Advocate General contended that the similarity admitted was only superficial and that material differences existed in the nature of duties, funding sources, and administrative classification. Argued that the Supreme Court’s status quo order indicated a prima facie view against the Sant Ram judgment, making its application premature. Invoked State of H.P. v. Rameshwar to assert that each case must be decided on its own facts.
The Court's Analysis
The Court rejected the State’s attempt to distinguish the petitioner’s case after having formally admitted its similarity. The Court held that an admission made in a sworn affidavit by a senior state officer is binding and cannot be retracted without judicial sanction. The Court observed:
"The State cannot be permitted to play a double game - first admitting similarity in its pleadings and then, in the same breath, denying it to avoid compliance."
The Court clarified that a status quo order under Section 151 CrPC or Article 142 of the Constitution does not operate as a stay on the judgment’s operative effect unless expressly so ordered. The Supreme Court’s order merely froze the position pending final adjudication; it did not reverse, set aside, or invalidate the Sant Ram judgment. The Court further held that the doctrine of stare decisis requires equal treatment of identical factual matrices. To deny relief here would violate the principle of equality under Article 14 of the Constitution.
The Court also noted that the petitioner had served for over 16 years at the time of judgment, far exceeding the eight-year threshold established in Sant Ram. The State’s delay in regularization, coupled with its own admission, rendered any further contestation untenable.
The Verdict
The writ petition was allowed. The Court directed the State to regularize the petitioner’s service from 03.01.2008, notionally, with actual benefits accruing from three years prior to the filing of the writ petition (i.e., from 23.03.2023). The petitioner is entitled to pay fixation as per the pay scale of regular employees in the same cadre, with all consequential benefits including increments, leave, and pension eligibility. The State shall pay 12% interest on arrears from 23.03.2023 until realization. Compliance is mandated within three months from the date of judgment.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Judicial Admissions Are Binding
- Practitioners must cite sworn admissions in pleadings as conclusive evidence of factual similarity
- The State cannot later dispute admissions made in court filings without seeking leave to retract
- Such admissions can be used to bypass lengthy litigation on identical claims
Status Quo Orders Do Not Nullify Precedents
- A Supreme Court status quo order does not erase the binding effect of a High Court judgment
- Relief granted under a valid precedent remains enforceable unless explicitly stayed or set aside
- Petitioners may proceed with implementation even while SLPs are pending
Equal Pay Doctrine Applies to Long-Term Daily Wage Workers
-
Continuous service beyond eight years triggers a presumption of entitlement to regularization
-
Denial of equal pay and benefits violates Article 14 where regular employees perform identical duties
-
Courts will not permit administrative convenience to override constitutional rights
-
Always file applications for regularization after eight years of continuous daily wage service
-
Cite Sant Ram and similar judgments as binding precedents in your jurisdiction
-
Use State admissions in replies as a strategic tool to secure summary relief
