The Himachal Pradesh High Court has clarified that the nomenclature of a worker as “bill basis” instead of “daily wage” cannot be used to deny regularization under State policy, reaffirming and extending prior precedent to ensure equal treatment for all similarly situated workers. This judgment follows and strengthens existing judicial trends and is binding on all subordinate courts in Himachal Pradesh, serving as persuasive authority elsewhere.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CWP/3198/2023 of NEELAM DEVI Vs THE STATE OF HP AND ANOTHER |
| CNR | HPHC010181612023 |
| Date of Registration | 25-05-2023 |
| Decision Date | 10-09-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | Disposed Off |
| Judgment Author | Hon’ble Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua |
| Court | High Court of Himachal Pradesh |
| Bench | Single Bench (Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua) |
| Precedent Value | Binding on all subordinate courts in Himachal Pradesh; persuasive elsewhere |
| Overrules / Affirms |
|
| Type of Law | Service Law / Regularization of Workers / Employment under State |
| Questions of Law | Whether engagement as a “bill basis” worker, instead of as a “daily wage” worker, can be a ground for denying regularization of service under State policy. |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The Court held that the nomenclature of “bill basis” engagement cannot be determinative for denying regularization. There is no intelligible differentia between “bill basis” and “daily wage” workers if both perform the same functions and meet service criteria. The practice of denying regularization merely on the basis of nomenclature violates Article 14 of the Constitution. The relevant criterion is completion of the requisite days of service, not the payment method. The department is required to consider regularization claims based on total service rendered, irrespective of the mode of engagement or payment. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | Emphasis on equality under Article 14; reliance on prior decisions holding no valid distinction between bill basis and daily wage workers for regularization purpose; State policy on regularization of workers |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | Petitioner served as a water carrier, first as a daily rated worker (2014–2015), then on a “bill basis.” She claimed over 240 days’ service each year and sought regularization. The State denied her claim, alleging she was engaged only as a contractor from 2016, and had not worked 240 days in any year. The core dispute centered on regularization denial due to the “bill basis” engagement. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Himachal Pradesh |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts, Supreme Court |
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- The Court reaffirms that the “bill basis” nomenclature cannot be used to deny regularization under the State’s policy if service conditions are otherwise met.
- Distinguishing between “bill basis” and “daily wage” workers for purposes of regularization is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
- Employers are mandated to consider the period of actual service rendered, irrespective of the mode or nomenclature of payment, when deciding on regularization claims.
- The judgment enhances prior precedent, making it easier for similarly situated workers to seek regularization even if paid on a non-daily wage basis.
- Lawyers contesting denials of regularization based on payment mode have a strong binding precedent in HP, and a persuasive authority for other fora.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court began by reviewing the petitioner’s engagement history and the respondent’s objections, notably the contention that “bill basis” engagement bars regularization.
- Reliance was placed on Pyare Lal v. State of HP, which rejected the notion that payment mode (“bill basis” or otherwise) is determinative of regularization eligibility, citing the employer’s obligation to consider total service rendered.
- Ram Singh v. State of HP was cited to hold that there is no intelligible differentia between “bill basis” and “daily wage” workers; any such distinction violates Article 14.
- The Court noted previous practical implementation of this principle by the respondent department itself in previous cases.
- Absent compelling evidence from the respondent that the petitioner was a genuine contractor and not a worker, the Court directed regularization consideration purely on actual service rendered, regardless of payment title.
- The required exercise is to be concluded within six weeks as per state policy, with results to be communicated to the petitioner.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Asserted that she rendered more than 240 days’ service each year as a water carrier, initially as a daily rated worker, later on “bill basis.”
- Claimed that denial of regularization based on nomenclature is arbitrary and contrary to established precedents.
- Sought directions for regularization under State policy.
Respondents
- Contended that petitioner was engaged as a contractor from 2016 on “bill basis,” not as a regular daily wage worker.
- Maintained that petitioner never completed 240 days of service in any year.
- Argued that the department does not engage labour on muster roll or otherwise; only “bill basis” payment for scheduled works.
- Denied that petitioner was working against a sanctioned post or eligible for regularization.
Factual Background
The petitioner served as a daily rated Water Carrier in the respondent-Forest Department in 2014–2015 before being shifted to “bill basis” employment. She alleged over 240 days of service each year and sought regularization, which the State denied on grounds of her engagement being as a contractor since 2016 and not having completed the requisite days of service. The key dispute was whether her “bill basis” status could bar regularization benefits.
Statutory Analysis
- The Court referred to Article 14 of the Constitution of India, emphasizing the unconstitutionality of arbitrary classification between “bill basis” and “daily wage” workers.
- No specific statute was interpreted or “read down,” but the reasoning hinged on the application of service regularization policies of the State Government.
- The Court reviewed prior judgments construing eligibility under the State’s policy for regularization dated 22.04.2020, making clear that nomenclature is irrelevant if conditions of service are satisfied.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or separate concurring opinions are recorded in this single-judge judgment.
Procedural Innovations
No new procedural innovations are recorded in this judgment.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The decision affirms and further entrenches existing precedent, specifically Pyare Lal v. State of HP, Ram Singh v. State of HP, and Neter Singh v. State of HP.