Himachal Pradesh High Court Cautions State Against Filing Repeated Appeals In Similar Matters, Causing Undue Harassment To Poor Litigants

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has cautioned the State against filing similar appeals in similar matters, as it causes undue harassment to people belonging to the lowest strata of society.Justice Vivek Singh Thakur & Justice Ranjan Sharma: “Respondents-State is preferring similar appeals in similar matters again and again, which is not only causing wastage of time, energy and resources of the Court as well as the State, but also resulting into undue harassment to persons, like present petitioner, belonging to lowest strata of the society.”Background Facts:The respondent, Gejam Ram worked as a daily wage worker in the Department of Horticulture since July 1971. He had continuously completed 240 days of service in each calendar year from 1994 onwards. His services were regularised only in December 2006 under the then policy of regularisation for Daily Wage workers. Gejam Ram claimed he was entitled to regularisation and work charge status from the date he completed 8 years of continuous service. He approached the High Court in 2011 with a prayer to grant him work charge status as per the law laid down by this High Court in the case of Rakesh Kumar vs. State of HP, 2010, with all consequential benefits including salary, pay fixation etc.The High Court directed the department to examine his claim with respect to the 2010 judgment. However, since the State had filed an appeal before the Supreme Court against Rakesh Kumar's judgment, the High Court made its directions subject to the outcome of that appeal. The Supreme Court later dismissed the State's Special Leave Petition in 2015.Despite this, the worker's claim was rejected on the ground that no work charge establishment was in existence in the Horticulture Department.Aggrieved, he filed an application before the H.P. State Administrative Tribunal, which quashed the rejection order and directed the department to reconsider the worker's claim for regularisation on completion of 8 years' service with all consequential benefits.However, the department did not reconsider it, and the petitioner filed a contempt petition in 2016 before the H.P. State Administrative Tribunal. On the abolition of the Tribunal, the matter was transferred to the High Court as Contempt Petition No. 130 of 2020.In the Contempt petition, the Single Judge bench of the High Court found prima facie contempt and passed an order directing the departmental officers to appear personally for further proceedings. Feeling aggrieved by the High Court's directions, the state filed this Letters Patent Appeal, seeking to set aside the order. Findings:The High Court remarked that the Single Judge's order in the contempt proceedings was only an interim order and not a judgment; it did not decide any issue about the worker's regularisation claim but only decided whether contempt had occurred or not. The High Court thus dismissed the appeal filed by the State. It also stated that according to the Himachal Pradesh State Litigation Policy, the State and its agencies are required to act honestly and fairly in handling claims and litigation, which includes dealing with claims promptly and not causing unnecessary delay in the handling of claims; paying legitimate claims without litigation.Thereafter, the High Court cautioned the State not to repeat a similar act in future. The registry was directed to list the contempt petition on 16th July, 2025, and both parties were directed to be present. Case Name: Director of Horticulture to the Government of HP V/s Gejam Ram & othersCase No.: LPA No. 229 of 2023Date of Decision: 09.07.2025For the Appellants: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Vishav Deep Sharma, Additional Advocate General and Mr.Hemant K. Verma Deputy Advocate General.For the Respondents: Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, Sr.Advocate with Mr. Sohail Khan, Advocate for respondent No.1.Click Here To Read/Download Order

Himachal Pradesh High Court Cautions State Against Filing Repeated Appeals In Similar Matters, Causing Undue Harassment To Poor Litigants

Mehak Aggarwal

Tags