IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.3684 of 2019 Decided on : 13.07.2026 Sher Singh and Ors. ...Petitioners Versus State of HP and Others …Respondents. Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioners : Mr. Ashok Kumar Verma, Advocate. For the respondent(s) : Mr. Pranay Pratap Singh, Additional Advocate General. Bipin Chander Negi, Judge (Oral) The present petition has been filed seeking the following reliefs:- “(a) That the fictional breaks granted to the petitioner No.1, 2 and 3 w.e.f. their initial engagements i.e. 08.08.1997, 06.09.1998 and April 1999 till February 2000, September 2001 and July 2003 respectively may kindly be declared wrong and illegal and consequently they be granted the seniority and continuity of service for the said fictional breaks period for the purpose of regularization and other consequential service and monetary benefits. (b) That the services of the petitioners may kindly be regularized on the completion of their eight years of continuous service or as per the policy of the Government. 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes -2- 2. Heard counsel for the parties and perused he pleadings. No replication has been filed. 3. Based on the pleadings, the following admitted position qua employment of the petitioners can be deduced. Petitioner No.1 engaged in the year 9/1997 and worked for 99 days, 202 days in 1998 and then 172 days in 1999, again in 2000 he worked less than 240 days i.e. 229 days and it is only from 2001 that he started working with 240 days in each calendar year. Petitioner No.1 completed 8 years continuous service with 240 days by 31/12/2008. As such covered by the policy of 31/03/2009 and regularized vide Executive Engineer, IPH Division, Padhar letter No.33774-78 dated 28/01/2010 from prospective date. 4. Petitioner No.2 worked in respondent department with 240 days in continuity only from the year 1998. Petitioner No.2 engaged in the year 9/1998 and worked for 52 days. He worked for 82 days in 1999, 179 days in 2000. From 2001 onwards he started working with 240 days in each calendar year. Petitioner No.2 has also been regularized as per policy of 31/03/2009 vide Executive Engineer, IPH Division Padhar letter No.1508-93 dated 01-10-2010 from prospective date. -3- 5. Petitioner No.3 engaged in the year 4/1999 and worked for 165 days. In the year 2000 he completed 240 days however again in 2001 & 2002 he worked less than required 240 days. He worked in continuity with 240 days from the year 2003 onwards. Petitioner No.3 who completed 8 years continuous service by 31/12/2010, however, the petitioner being illiterate his regularization-could not be done as per applicable policy as he was not fulfilling the education criteria. His case was referred for relaxation in education qualification by the Executive Engineer, IPH Division Padhar and relaxation received in this regard in his favour only in the year 2014 and accordingly regularized as per policy. 6. Representation with respect for grant of continuity of service by excluding the period of fictional breaks was raised by petitioner No.1 on 15.02.2010 (Annexure P-9), petitioner No.2 on 16.11.2010 (Annexure P-10) and petitioner No.3 on 18.03.2014 (Annexure P-11). Petitioners No.1 and 2 had reiterated the request vide representations dated 15.06.2019 (Annexures P-12 and P-13, respectively). 7. In the aforesaid backdrop, a specific plea with respect to the claim being barred by delay and laches has been raised by the present respondents. In this respect reference -4- has been made to the authoritative pronouncement of the Apex Court in (2006) 4 SCC 322, titled Karnataka Power Corporation Ltd. Vs. K. Thangappan. The relevant extract of the same is reproduced herein below:- “6. Delay or laches is one of the factors which is to be borne in mind by the High Court when they exercise their discretionary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution. In an appropriate case the High Court may refuse to invoke its extraordinary powers if there is such negligence or omission on the part of the applicant to assert his right as taken in conjunction with the lapse of time and other circumstances, causes prejudice to the opposite party. Even where fundamental right is involved the matter is still within the discretion of the Court as pointed out in Durga Prasad v. Chief Controller of Imports and Exports (AIR 1970 SC 769). Of course, the discretion has to be exercised judicially and reasonably.” 8. Reference is further made to the authoritative pronouncement of the Apex Court in (2009) 1 SCC 168, titled In City and Industrial Development Corpn. Vs. Dosu Aardeshir Bhiwandiwala. The relevant extract of the same is reproduced herein below:- -5- “26…….one of the grounds for refusing relief is that the person approaching the High Court is guilty of unexplained delay and the laches. Inordinate delay in moving the court for a Writ is an adequate ground for refusing a Writ. The principle is that courts exercising public law jurisdiction do not encourage agitation of stale claims and exhuming matters where the rights of third parties may have accrued in the interregnum. 9. Qua denial of relief to persons guilty of approaching the Court on account of unexplained delay, it would be relevant to refer to (2012) 7 SCC 610, titled Vijay Kumar Kaul and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors.. The relevant extract of the same is reproduced herein below:- “27……..It becomes an obligation to take into consideration the balance of justice or injustice in entertaining the petition or declining it on the ground of delay and laches. It is a matter of great significance that at one point of time equity that existed in favour of one melts into total insignificance and paves the path of extinction with the passage of time.” See also (2024) 15 SCC 215, titled Mrinmoy Maity Vs. Chhanda Koley and Ors. -6- 10. Admittedly, in the case at hand regularization of the petitioners No.1 and 2 had happened in the year 2010 and that of petitioner NO.3 in the year 2014. Petitioners No.1 and 2 had preferred the representation in the year 2010 and thereafter had filed a fresh representation in the year 2019 qua the alleged fictional breaks. Thereafter the present petition was filed. It is a well-settled position of law that repeated representations would not enhance the period of limitation. 11. Even otherwise, regularization of petitioners No.1 and 2 had been done in the year 2010. At that particular point of time, petitioners No.1 and 2 were aggrieved by the alleged fictional breaks given. Similarly, petitioner No.3 had regularized in the year 2014. Petitioner had made representation in the year 2014 and then thereafter in the year 2019. Once having accepted the regularization, petitioners cannot be permitted to raise grievances pertaining to the alleged breaks given way back in the initial years of their daily wage service i.e. almost 20 years ago. 12. Admittedly with respect to the representations made, no decision had been taken thereupon. Once decisions have not been taken on the representations, it was incumbent -7- upon the petitioners to approach the Court within a reasonable time. There is no explanation for the delay in approaching the Court. 13. The issue of fictional breaks as is being alleged by the petitioners, is a question of fact to be decided and examined by a statutory forum i.e. Industrial Tribunal. The same cannot be conclusively established in a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Even otherwise, once question of fact is disputed, petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is not maintainable. The issue of fictional breaks in the case at hand is disputed. 14. In the aforesaid terms, the present petition is dismissed being devoid of merit. The pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stand disposed of. (Bipin Chander Negi) Judge 13th July, 2026 (Gaurav Rawat)