IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA LPA No.13 of 2017 Decided on : 11.03.2026 Union of India and Others. ...Appellants Versus Surinder Kumar and Anr. …Respondents. Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the appellants : Mr. Balram Sharma, Deputy Solicitor General of India, for respondents No.1 to 3-Union of India. For the respondents : Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Sohail Khan, Advocate. G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice (Oral) By way of the present appeal, a challenge has been laid to the order passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP No.1031 of 2014, titled Surinder Kumar Vs. Union of India, decided on 06.09.2016, whereby the learned Single Judge has directed consideration of the case of the petitioner/respondent for regularization in Group-D Category or as LDC within a period of eight weeks. 2. The order under challenge is dated 06.09.2016. The reason, which weighed with the learned Single Judge was that the respondent/petitioner had worked uninterruptedly for more than seven 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes -2- years. On the basis of the instructions given to the learned counsel for the respondent/petitioner that similarly situated Data Entry Operators were subsequently absorbed in Group-D category/LDC, therefore, the necessary directions were issued. 3. We have gone through the writ petition in detail. The writ petition is totally bereft of any specific instance of any similarly situated persons, who had been granted the said benefit and there are only bald and vague averments that a person definitely junior to the petitioner was offered appointment in a purely arbitrary and discriminatory manner as Data Entry Operators, some of them junior to the persons, had been made LDC in other campuses of respondent No.2. No specific instance has been given. 4. We are of the considered opinion that directions passed by the learned Single Judge were not justified. It is well-settled principle that petitioner has to make out his case by specific pleading and giving instance of a person junior to him, who has been granted the benefit of regularization so that the respondents can put forward their defence and give valid justification, as to in what circumstances such a person has been given the benefit of regularization, so that the Court can also balance the rights as such inter se the parties and also come to a valid conclusion, whether Article 14 of the Constitution of India has been violated or not. In the absence of any such pleadings, we are not in a position to sustain the order passed by the learned Single Judge, in -3- issuing directions to consider regularization on the statement of a counsel not for the respondent, but for the petitioner. Resultantly the appeal is allowed and the order passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP No.1031 of 2014, titled Surinder Kumar Vs. Union of India, decided on 06.09.2016, is set aside. Accordingly, the present appeal stands disposed of. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (G.S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice (Bipin Chander Negi) Judge 11th March, 2026 (Gaurav Rawat)