( 2025:HHC:28925 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA LPA No.529 of 2025. Decided on: 26.08.2025 Parkash Chand ....Appellant Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and another ....Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellant : Mr. Prem Chand Verma and Mr. Aakash Thakur, Advocates. For the Respondents : Mr. Sidharth Jalta, Deputy Advocate General, for the respondents-State. G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice (Oral). The challenge as such in the present Letters Patent Appeal is to the order dated 25.06.2025, passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in CWPOA No.1242 of 2019 titled Parkash Chand Vs. State of H.P. & another. The learned Single Judge had rejected the challenge as such to the order dated 20.12.2011 (Annexure P-10), whereby the petitioner had sought the benefit of regularization with retrospective effect in Group ‘D’ Cadre. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2. The reason which weighed with the learned Single Judge was that the regularization order had initially been passed on 07.07.2006 and merely on account of submitting a representation on 22.10.2011 (Annexure P-9) after more than five years, merely because the rejection order had been passed on 20.12.2011 (Annexure P-10) and therefore, the same would not give a fresh cause of action and the writ petition was dismissed on account of delay and laches. 3. Counsel for the appellant has vehemently submitted that in pursuance to the earlier directions passed by the erstwhile Tribunal on 13.07.2005 (Annexure P-7), it had been directed that his case be considered and the Deputy Comimssioner, Solan on 14.09.2005 had forwarded his case for regularization. It is submitted that the matter for regularization at par with similarly situated persons was still pending and the order of regularization passed on 07.07.2006 (Annexure P-8) did not give complete benefit to him and did not place him at par with similarly situated persons, from the Census Department. It is thus submitted that it was clarified in his representation dated 22.10.2011 (Annexure P-9), while referring to the same that one Sohan Lal had been given the benefit as such. We have also gone through the representation dated 22.10.2011, which showed that the 3 appellant/petitioner had given three instances of persons, who had been regularized in the year 1997-1998. Apparently, the appellant/petitioner’s services had been regularized on 07.07.2006 (Annexure P-8). The said order reads as under:- “No.Estt/IV-5/72-VIII Office of the Deputy Commissioner, Solan, Distt. Solan (HP). Dated Solan the 7th July, 2006 OFFICE ORDER On the recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee meeting held on 07.07.2006 at 03:30 PM, and in compliance to the letter No.PER(AP)-C-B(2)-1/2006- Vol-II dated 09.06.2006 of the Department of the Personnel to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, Sh. Prakash Chand daily wages Chowkidar is herbey regularized against the vacant post of the Chowkidar at Hqrs with prospective effect at the minimum of the time scale of pay Rs.2520-100-3220-110-3660-120-4140 with the initial start of Rs.2620/- with immediate effect. The seniority of the above official shall be determined on the date of issue of this order and from the date of joining of the official on the above post. The above official will remain on probation period for 2 years. Deputy Commissioner, Solan.” 4. Having got the benefit of regularization and earlier also having agitated the same before the Deputy Commissioner, Solan on 14.09.2005 (Annexure A-I) by giving the instance of Sohan Lal, the appellant/petitioner had never further projected his case for the benefit of regularization from the earlier date after being well aware of the same. After a period of more than five 4 years, he had filed the representation dated 22.10.2011, which was decided vide order dated on 22.12.2011 which was sought to be challenged by filing of the present writ petition. 5. It is in such circumstances, it is apparent that appellant/petitioner had given up his claim, though being well aware that he was seeking parity at an earlier point of time before the Deputy Commissioner, Solan on 14.09.2005 with Sohan Lal. Merely, filing of the representation would not revive the cause of action, as has been held by the Apex Court in Government of India and another Vs. P. Venkatesh (2019) 15 SCC 613, wherein it has been held that filing of representations and seeking directions for decision of the same would not extend the period of limitation and the said practice has been castigated. 6. Reliance thus can be placed upon the recent judgment of the Apex Court in Marinmoy Maity Vs. Chanda Koley and others reported in AIR 2024 SC 2717, wherein specifically the issue of delay and apparoching the Writ Court has been elucidated and it has been held that the Writ Court should be approached at the earliest. 7. The law regarding the limitation aspect has not been specifically provided under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, but the same had been laid down in P.S. 5 Sadasivaswamy Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu (1975) 1 SCC 152 regarding the necessity to approach the Writ Court at the earliest. 8. In such circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the appellant/petitioner being well aware of the similarly situated persons having got benefit way-back in the year 1997-1998 and having projected his case before the Deputy Commissioner, Solan in the year 2005 and having accepted the regularization in the year 2006, merely on the strength of the representation filed in the year 2011 could not as such extend the period of llimiation, merely on account of the rejection order passed by the State on 22.12.2011. 9. Apparently, after the order of regularization in 2006, the Himachal Prdaesh Administrative Tribunal was in existence till July 2008 and outer limit to file the petition, as such, against the order of regularization would be one year under Section 21 of The Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. Thus, mere filing of the representation as noticed above would not extend the period of limitation. 10. In such circumstances, the view taken by the learned Single Judge as such does not suffer from any infirmity or 6 illegality which would warrant any interference in the Letters Patent Appeal. 11. Resultantly, the present appeal stands dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s) if any, are accordingly disposed off. (G.S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice (Ranjan Sharma) Judge 26th August, 2025 (munish thakur)