In a strong move to uphold accountability, the Himachal Pradesh High Court has imposed a substantial fine of Rs 5 lakh on state horticulture department officials for their failure to implement a judicial order concerning a daily wage employee's service regularisation for almost ten years.
A Decade of Denied Justice
The bench, led by Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, expressed severe displeasure at the department's inaction. The case pertains to Gejam Ram, a Class IV daily wager, whose rightful regularisation was delayed for years despite a clear judgment from the erstwhile state administrative tribunal.
The court directed that the principal secretary of the department, C Paulrasu, must first pay the cost to the petitioner. Subsequently, he is authorised to initiate recovery proceedings from the officials he deems responsible for the non-compliance. The horticulture department has been granted a strict deadline of four weeks to finally implement the tribunal's verdict.
The Core of the Contempt
Court records revealed a straightforward yet grievous error. While Gejam Ram was regularised in 2006, the tribunal had correctly determined that his eight years of service should be counted from 1994. This entitled him to regularisation from 2002 onwards, along with all associated benefits. The discrepancy involved merely four years of work-charge status, a crucial period for a low-ranking employee.
Emphasising the department's apathy, the bench noted that even as 2025 draws to a close, the tribunal's judgment remained unimplemented. The tribunal had clarified that being on a work-charge establishment was not a prerequisite for granting work-charge status to an employee and had directed the department to reconsider Ram's case for regularisation upon completion of eight years of service.
Contempt Proceedings and Judicial Warnings
The court's frustration was palpable as it recounted the legal journey. Earlier, on May 19, 2023, the high court had revived the petitioner's contempt petition. It had then clarified that the tribunal's order was not a mere suggestion for consideration but a firm directive following adjudication, confirming the petitioner's entitlement.
The court had issued a stern warning at the time, stating, "Any stand taken contrary to the findings rendered by the court, in the absence of setting aside such findings, shall amount to contempt of court." Despite this unambiguous caution, the petitioner was forced to pursue legal recourse for over two more years, making endless rounds of the court to claim his legitimate rights.
This ruling underscores the judiciary's growing intolerance towards bureaucratic delays that undermine the rights of vulnerable employees. It sets a precedent for holding individual officers financially accountable for lapses that deprive citizens of justice delivered through lawful channels.
