IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No. 8970 of 2024 Decided on 23rd June, 2026 Chet Singh @ Tej Singh Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and another …Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge 1Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioner: Mr. Nimish Gupta, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Pushpender Jaswal, Additional Advocate General. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs:- “i) That the respondents department may kindly be directed to regularized the services of the petitioner w.e.f. 01.01.2012 with all consequential benefits; ii) That the respondents department may kindly be directed to grant the consequential benefits as granted to his counter parts vide Annexure P-2 along with interest @ 9%.” 2. The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as a Revenue Chowkidar, vide Office Order dated 21.5.1993. Though, it is not so mentioned in the writ petition, however, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the initial engagement of the petitioner was on part time basis. Thereafter, daily-wage status was conferred upon the petitioner on 27.2.2004, subject to the condition that he will not be entitled for any monetary benefits as daily wager. His services were regularized on 4.7.2014 and he retired from the service on 30.4.2022. After his retirement, the petitioner has approached this Court praying for the reliefs already mentioned herein-above. 3. This Court is of the considered view that the present writ petition is hit by delay and laches. The relief of regularization w.e.f. 1.1.2012 is being sought by the petitioner after a decade as from the date the cause of action accrued in his favour, i.e. when his services were actually regularized in the year 2014. It is not the case of the petitioner that persons similarly situated to him were regularized from the year 2012, after his regularization, retrospectively. In fact, a perusal of Annexure P-4 demonstrates that the regularization of the incumbents with whom the petitioner is seeking parity in regularization was done, vide order dated 3.4.2013, on the basis of judgment passed in Dharam Chand and others Vs. State of HP and others in CWP No. 9906 of 2012, decided on 20.11.2012. All this demonstrates that the judgment in issue already stood pronounced before the regularization of the petitioner and the 2 office order, in terms whereof other incumbents were regularized with effect from the year 2012 was also inexistence when the petitioner was regularized in the year 2014. Nothing prevented the petitioner from raising this issue, if indeed he was aggrieved by the regularization of other incumbents from the year 2012, or his late regularization immediately after his services were regularized. However, he slept over the matter for years together. 4. Therefore, as this Court is of the considered view that the present petition is hit by delay and laches, the same is dismissed, so also pending miscellaneous applications, if any. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge June 23, 2026 (Guleria) 3