“Substance over Procedure” in Public Employment:
Balbir Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh (2025) and the Compulsory Regularisation of Long-Serving Daily Wagers

1. Introduction

CWP No. 3189 of 2025 before the Himachal Pradesh High Court grew out of nearly two decades of litigation and administrative resistance surrounding the service conditions of Sh. Balbir Singh, a Class-IV employee engaged as a daily wager in the Government Post Graduate College, Nahan, on 23 June 2006.

Although Mr. Singh performed uninterrupted duties as Peon/Daftri/Chowkidar/Sweeper and had clocked well over the 240-day annual threshold prescribed by the State’s Regularisation Policy of 28 June 2014, the Directorate of Higher Education refused to regularise him on the ground that:

1. his original engagement had been made by the Principal without prior approval; and
2. he was working against a “non-sanctioned/non-created” post paid out of the College’s amalgamated fund.

Multiple earlier writs, an execution petition, and even a Letters Patent Appeal (LPA No. 456/2024) had directed the State repeatedly to consider his case within the policy framework, yet the administration continued to rely on the same objections. On 19 August 2025 Justice Sandeep Sharma finally quashed the third rejection order (18 January 2025), directed regularisation with effect from 2013, and imposed exemplary costs of ₹50,000 on the State.

2. Summary of the Judgment

• The Court held that where a daily-wage employee (a) has completed the qualifying years of service with the requisite 240 days per year and (b) is paid through the public exchequer (even if routed through an “amalgamated fund”), the employer cannot defeat regularisation merely by pointing to procedural irregularities in the initial appointment.
• Rejection of regularisation on grounds already negated in earlier writs amounts to wilful non-compliance with judicial orders.
• The Directorate was ordered to regularise Mr. Singh w.e.f. 2013 (seven years after first engagement, in consonance with the 2014 policy) within four weeks.
• Cost of ₹50,000 imposed personally on the respondents to be paid within four weeks for “defeating the rightful claim of the petitioner.”

3. Detailed Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited and Relied Upon

1. CWPOA No. 3135/2020 (DB judgment 16 Oct 2020) – first direction to consider regularisation within policy, recognising that payment via Treasury gave the arrangement the colour of Government employment.
2. Execution Petition No. 29/2021 – enforced the 2020 judgment; State given two weeks to comply.
3. CWP No. 5003/2021 (SJ judgment 04 Apr 2024) – set aside the first rejection order (03 Jul 2021) for re-asserting the same defences struck down in 2020.
4. LPA No. 456/2024 (DB 11 Dec 2024) – affirmed the Single Judge; clarified that if eligibility criteria were met, the State was “bound to regularise”.

Although the judgment itself does not expressly cite Supreme Court authority, the Court’s reasoning resonates with:

• State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (2006) 4 SCC 1 – emphasising constitutional limits on regularisation but allowing it in the presence of a specific policy.
• State of Punjab v. Jagjit Singh (2017) 1 SCC 148 – equal pay for equal work and fairness for temporary staff.

Justice Sharma implicitly distinguished Umadevi, pointing out that Himachal Pradesh has, in fact, framed a regularisation scheme; therefore, refusal was arbitrary, not constitutionally compelled.

3.2 Legal Reasoning

The Court’s reasoning is constructed on three inter-locking pillars:

1. Policy Supremacy Over Initial Irregularity
   If the Government has voluntarily adopted a regularisation policy containing objective conditions (years of service, 240-day norm, minimum educational qualification), the administration cannot introduce further disqualifications such as “non-sanctioned post” that are not found in the policy itself.
2. Public-fund Test
   Salary paid from a College’s amalgamated fund loses its private character once deposited into the District Treasury; it becomes “public money”. Therefore, the employee is, functionally, on Government rolls, triggering the duty to consider him under the State policy.
3. Finality of Judicial Directions
   The State’s re-assertion of the same defence already rejected in earlier writs and appeals amounted to a collateral attack on final judgments, offending the rule of law and inviting costs.

3.3 Impact on Future Litigation and Public Service Law

• Clarifies Scope of Regularisation Policies – Departments can no longer deny regularisation merely by labelling a post as “non-sanctioned” when the policy does not include that ground.
• Strengthens “Public-Fund Doctrine” – Any employee whose remuneration ultimately emanates from the Treasury is presumptively covered by Government regularisation policies, even if the first engagement was by a subordinate authority.
• Encourages Compliance Culture – By imposing personal costs and a firm deadline, the Court signals stricter scrutiny on bureaucratic defiance of judicial orders.
• Potential Spill-Over to Contractual Teachers, Health Workers, etc. – Sectors in which principals or medical superintendents hire auxiliaries from institutional funds may invoke this precedent.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

• Regularisation: Conversion of an employee’s temporary/daily-wage appointment into a permanent one under Government service rules, carrying benefits like pay scale, seniority, pension.
• Non-Sanctioned/Non-Created Post: A position not formally approved in the Government’s Schedule of Posts and Budget; often used by departments to hire staff informally.
• Amalgamated Fund: Pool of fees and miscellaneous receipts retained by educational institutions; once deposited in the Treasury, releases of this money still require Government authorisation.
• Recruitment and Promotion Rules (R&PR): Statutory rules prescribing the method, qualifications and procedure for filling a post.
• CWPOA: Civil Writ Petition (Original Application) – a service matter transferred from the erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal to the High Court.
• Letters Patent Appeal (LPA): An intra-court appeal before a Division Bench against a Single Judge’s decision within the same High Court.

5. Conclusion

Balbir Singh’s case crystallises a pragmatic doctrine: where a Government chooses to frame a regularisation policy, the intrinsic merit of long, continuous service funded by the public exchequer outweighs procedural defects in the initial appointment.

By directing regularisation, back-dating the effective date, and imposing costs, the Himachal Pradesh High Court re-affirmed that administrative convenience cannot trump judicial authority or equity for workers who have devoted years of service. The decision is expected to arm thousands of similarly placed daily wagers with a robust precedent, while also nudging the State machinery toward greater fidelity in executing court orders. Ultimately, the judgment underscores the Courts’ readiness to privilege “substance over procedure” in public employment, provided the governing policy supports the employee’s claim.