( 2025:HHC:7402-DB ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWPOA No. 7653 of 2020. Decided on : 21 st March, 2025. Des Raj ...Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. & Anr. ....Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioners: Mr. Dilip Sharma, Senior Advocate with Mr. Harsh Kalta, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Hemant K. Verma, Dy. A.G. Satyen Vaidya, Judge (Oral). Heard. 2. By way of instant petition, the petitioner has prayed for grant of following substantive reliefs:- “i) That the respondent be directed to make the payment of the applicant as per letter Annexure A-2 and Annexure A-4 and be directed to continue and employee of the respondent and his services be regularized. ii) That the services of applicant be regularized and he be given seniority from the date of his juniors have been regularized.” 3. In para-5 of the reply submitted by the respondents, it is clearly mentioned that the petitioner did not turn up for work since 2018 and he attained the age of 58 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? years on 04.09.2018. All the payments, which were due to the petitioner, stood released to him. On such ground, the maintainability of the petition has been questioned. 4. The aforesaid contention of the respondent is fortified by an order dated 25.04.2018 passed by the erstwhile H.P. State Administrative Tribunal in OA(D) No. 378 of 2017, titled Des Raj vs. State of H.P. & Anr. , which was filed by the petitioner in December, 2017 and was disposed of in following terms:- “Rejoinder not filed. 2. However, in view of the statement at the bar made by learned vice counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant that pursuant to the order dated 20.12.2017 passed by this Tribunal, the relief claimed by the applicant has since been granted to him rendering the original application as infructuous , which is disposed of accordingly.” 5. Once the petitioner had shown his satisfaction regarding the benefits granted to him, on which basis O.A.(D) No. 378 of 2017 was disposed of, the petitioner cannot be allowed to rake up the issue time and again. 6. In this view of the matter, the contention of the respondents is upheld and the petition is held to be not …2… ( 2025:HHC:7402-DB ) maintainable. Accordingly, the instant petition is dismissed being not maintainable. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Satyen Vaidya) Judge 21st March, 2025. (jai) …3… ( 2025:HHC:7402-DB )