IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA LPA No.294 of 2025 Decided on: 23.06.2025 ____________________________________________________________ Vinod Kumar ...Appellant Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. ...Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge 1Whether approved for reporting? For the appellant: Mr. Shubham Sood, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Gobind Korla, Additional Advocate General. G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice [Oral] The present appeal is directed against the order of learned Single Judge, passed in CWP No.1690 of 2025, titled as Vinod Kumar Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Others, decided on 10.03.2025, wherein it was noticed that the appellant had been dismissed from the Home Guard Organization and therefore, could not be re-enrolled in the organization vide notification dated 23.03.2023 [Annexure P-4]. Similarly, the appeal dated 21.03.2024 [Annexure P-6] had been rejected by 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? - 2 - respondent No.2, by noting the fact that the same had happened on 07.10.2004 and earlier also the appellant had represented for re-enrollment but on account of gross indiscipline, misconduct and past record, re-enrollment could not be directed. 2. The learned Single Judge vide impugned order rejected the argument that petitioner’s case was to be considered as per the mandate in CWP No.3628 of 2020, titled as Inder Singh Versus State of H.P. & Others, decided on 05.01.2021 and distinguished the same and chose not to interfere in the orders impugned. It was held that there was no provision as such, in the Himachal Pradesh Home Guards Organization Act 1968 and the Rules framed thereunder, for re-enrollment of Home Guard Volunteer, who had been discharged from the Organization for misuse of power, indiscipline, irresponsible act, corruption and misconduct. Resultantly, the writ petition was dismissed. 3. Today also we have noticed that the said factum having been done on 07.10.2004, has already attained finality and the request for re-enrollment in the year 2022 could not carry the substance. - 3 - 4. Counsel for the appellant had tried to convince us that the matter would require consideration by calling upon the State in disagreement with learned Single Judge. Firstly, that it has to be clarified that on account of the pleadings as such, learned Single Judge has recorded the fact that there is a discharge order, rather perusal of the paper book would go on to show that it was actually a dismissal on 07.10.2004 [Annexure P-1] under Rule 9(2)(E) of the Home Guard Rules, 1971. The petitioner has also admitted to have taken Rs.1,400/- and a knife from Vivek Guleria late at night due to which it appears that dismissal order was passed with a preliminary inquiry. Apparently the petitioner chose not to challenge the said order and on account of the order passed in Inder Singh’s case (supra), filed the earlier round of litigation i.e. CWP No.4103 of 2022, wherein on 28.06.2022, on account of the limited prayer as such, that the matter is required to be examined by the respondents, the decision was taken that respondents will consider the case of the petitioner. The order was apparently passed at the back of the State, which would be clear from the order, which reads as under :- - 4 - “O R D E R Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the issue in question is squarely covered by the judgment rendered by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No.3628 of 2020, in case titled as Inder Singh versus State of H.P. & Others, decided on 05.01.2021. This is a matter, which is required to be examined by the respondents. 2. Having regard to the limited submissions and without going into the merits of the case, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner in light of the aforementioned judgment rendered by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Inder Singh’s case (supra). 3. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.” 5. It is only on that account, the appeal was thereafter filed before the authorities dated 21.03.2024 [Annexure P-6], wherein, apparently for the first time, the stand was taken that petitioner was not aware of any inquiry or dismissal order, which cannot as such be accepted that petitioner being unaware that he had not been asked to join for a period for almost 20 years, goes on to show that, rather an effort was made to not disclose to the earlier Coordinate Bench that there was an order of dismissal as such. Therefore, the directions which were obtained to decide the representation, “would not revive a dead cause of action. The law is clear on this aspect. - 5 - 6. The Apex Court has held in Government of India & Anr. Versus P. Venkatesh (2019) 15 SCC 613 that the directions to decide the representation only open up stale claims and the mantra ‘decide my representation’ is not an appropriate methodology for resolving the litigations. It is only on the pretext of the said order, apparently, the respondents were forced to pass the subsequent orders on 23.03.2023 and 11.09.2024 [Annexure P-4 and P-7], which led to the alleged cause of action, on account of this writ petition. 7. Resultantly, we are of the considered opinion that petitioner had slept and never chosen to challenge the order dated 07.10.2004, as there are different connotations under the Rules regarding discharge and dismissal. Rather the inquiry report is also appended as Annexure P-5, which would go on to show that the amount of Rs.1,400/- which was extorted, had been returned by the petitioner and Dinesh Kumar to the student and receipt was also taken. In such circumstances, order dated 07.10.2004 had been passed and therefore, it does not lie in the mouth of the appellant that he was unaware that there was a - 6 - dismissal order. 8. In such circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the prayer made for re-enrollment, on the basis of Inder Singh’s case has rightly been distinguished by the learned Single Judge and the writ petition has also been dismissed on the ground that the order had attained finality. It is settled principle that the person has to approach the Courts or the Appellate Authority within a specified period and having not done so and waited for almost two decades, the writ petition cannot succeed in any manner. Resultantly, we do not find any ground to interfere in the well reasoned order passed by learned Single Judge. 9. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. - (G.S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice (Ranjan Sharma) Judge June 23, 2025 [Chiranjeev/Himani]