2025:HHC:19855 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWPOA No.1242 of 2019 Decided on: 25.06.2025 Parkash Chand ...Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & another ...Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge Whether approved for reporting? No. For the petitioner: Mr. Prem Chand Verma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Amandeep Sharma, Additional Advocate General Satyen Vaidya, Judge (Oral) The petitioner has prayed for the following substantive reliefs: “i) A writ in the nature of certiorari may kindly be issued for quashing Annexure P-10, dated 20.12.2011. ii) A writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued directing the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioner w.e.f. year 1998 when the services of similarly placed persons were regularized by the respondents.” 2. The facts, in brief, are that the petitioner was engaged as a casual worker in the Census Department in the year 1991. His services were disengaged in 1992. Thereafter, the State Government took a decision to absorb such retrenched staff 2 of 1991 census, who had been recruited through employment exchange and were below 35 years of age against vacant posts on daily wage basis in Government Departments, Corporations and Boards etc. 3. In sequel to aforesaid decision of the State Government, the petitioner was appointed as Chowkidar on daily wage basis in the office of Deputy Commissioner, Solan vide office order dated 19.12.1995. 4. The petitioner approached the erstwhile H.P. State Administrative Tribunal by way of Original Application No.1721 of 2005 with the grievance that he was working as daily wage Chowkidar for last more than 9 years and his services had not been regularized. Taking into consideration the grievance of the petitioner, learned Tribunal disposed of OA No.1721 of 2005 vide order dated 13.07.2005 in following terms: “Taking into consideration the above facts and circumstances of the case, this original application is directed to be treated as representation to be decided within a period of two months by the Deputy Commissioner, Solan. He is further directed to consider the case of the applicant as per latest policy of the State Government and before passing final orders on tis representation an opportunity of being heard is given to the applicant.” 3 5. In compliance to the aforesaid order passed by learned Tribunal, the Deputy Commissioner, Solan passed order dated 14.09.2005 and made recommendation for regularization of the services of the petitioner. It was observed that either the petitioner could be regularized w.e.f. 19.12.2003 under the regularization policy of the State Government or he could be considered as per Redeployment of Surplus Employees CCS (Redeployment of Surplus Staff) Rules, 1990 as applicable to the State of H.P. No decision was taken on the recommendation of the Deputy Commissioner, Solan, however, independent of aforesaid recommendation, the Deputy Commissioner, Solan issued office order dated 07.07.2006 regularizing the services of the petitioner as Chowkidar prospectively. The petitioner accepted his regularization vide office order dated 07.07.2006. 6. The petitioner thereafter submitted a representation dated 22.10.2011 to the Deputy Commissioner, Solan, and prayed for reconsideration of regularization of his services from retrospective effect. A copy of representation dated 22.10.2011 of the petitioner is Annexure P-9 on record. Its perusal reveals that the petitioner by way of said representation had sought parity with the retrenched staff of 1991 census, who allegedly had been regularized in District Shimla within 3 to 4 years of engagement. 4 7. The representation of the petitioner was rejected by Deputy Commissioner, Solan on 20.12.2011 vide Annexure P-10. This office order is under challenge in the instant petition. In addition, the petitioner has also sought mandamus for his regularization w.e.f. the year 1998. 8. Having considered the records, I am of the considered view that the petitioner is not entitled to the reliefs prayed in the petition. The petitioner having accepted the regularization order dated 07.07.2006 cannot be allowed to rake up the issue of regularization from retrospective effect by submitting a representation after more than 5 years of the issuance of office order dated 07.07.2006. The petitioner had on earlier occasion approached the erstwhile Tribunal by way of OA No.1721 of 2005. In compliance to the order passed in the said Original Application, the Deputy Commissioner had passed order dated 14.09.2005. The petitioner never sought the implementation of said order. The cumulative result of the factual position that has emerged in the instant petition is that the claim of the petitioner not only suffers from huge delay and laches, even otherwise the petitioner is estopped by his conduct from raising the issue. 5 9. In result, I see no merit in the instant petition and the same is dismissed along with pending application(s), if any. ( Satyen Vaidya ) Judge 25th June, 2025 (vt)