( 2025:HHC:25619 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA LPA No.341 of 2024 Date of Decision:- 29.07.2025 Mehboob Ali ....Appellant Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & others ....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. Hirdaya Ram, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Pranay Pratap Singh, Additional Advocate General, for respondents No.1 to 4-State. G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice (Oral). The present Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the order dated 10.11.2021, passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP (Original Application) No.4722 of 2019 titled Sh. Mehboob Ali Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors., 2. The learned Single Judge had dismissed the writ petition, while noticing that in the writ petition, directions were sought for re-engaging the petitioner with seniority since 2006 along with consequential benefits and granting work charge 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 status after completion of ten years way-back in the year 2003 on the ground that the petitioner was employed in the year 1993. The benefit of arrears and seniority was also sought for. Apart from that the order dated 25.09.2014 (Annexure P-6) was also sought to be quashed, wherein after reproducing the mandays chart, the State as such had rejected the representation for regularization and re-instatement by noting that vide office order dated 19.08.2011, his case already stood rejected and he is not entitled for regularization. 3. It is to be noticed that thereafter, the first writ petition had been filed being CWP No.10458 of 2011 titled Mehboob Ali Vs. State of H.P. and others and the same was dismissed as withdrawn on 28.08.2014 with liberty to consider his representation for grant of relief, if possible within six weeks. The said order reads as under:- “Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he may be permitted to withdraw the writ petition, with a direction to the respondents-State to consider his case for grant of relief in his favour as prayed for in the writ petition. In view of the above submission of the learned counsel for the petition at Bar, the petition is dismissed as withdrawn. However, the respondents, may within the ambit of rules consider the case of the petitioner for grant of relief in his favour as prayed for in the writ petition by possible, within six weeks from today. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly, so also the pending applciation(s), if any. No costs.” 3 4. Apparently, the order dated 19.08.2011 was never subject matter of challenge. The petitioner then filed CWP No.9538 of 2014 titled Sh. Mehboob Ali Vs. State of H.P. and others before this Court and eventually the same had been transferred to the Tribunal and thereafter on abolition of the Tribunal had come back to this Court and learned Single Judge had dismissed the writ petition, which is subject matter of consideration. 5. The reasons which weighed with the learned Single Judge were that the earlier order was already passed rejecting his case and once the termination from service itself was in the year 2006 and the same had never been challenged at any point of time. It was merely, on account of recommendation dated 31.08.2012 i.e. the case of petitioner would be considered subject to the availability of the vacant post in terms of seniority as well as fulfillment of Recruitment & Promotion (R&P) Rules for the post in issue, the cause of action had been alleged. 6. Accordingly, it was held that the regularization cannot be done, when the employee was not in service and it is not disputed that he was not in service on daily wage basis also, after 2006. 4 7. Counsel for the appellant vehemently referred to order passed by the authority on 04.02.2015 (Annexure R-VIII) to submit that the order dated 25.09.2014 stood withdrawn and therefore, the State was considering his case. A perusal of the said order would go on to show that it is only as such the recommendation made by the Divisional Forest Officer, Paonta Forest Division, Paonta Sahib, Himachal Pradesh and was subject to the fulfillment of the Recruitment & Promotion (R&P) Rules. 8. A perusal of the mandays chart would go on to show that the petitioner had never fulfilled the 10 years eligibility criteria as such for regularization not having completed 240 days of work and thereafter from his own, as per the admitted case, had not worked from the year 2007. The relevant mandays chart reads as under:- Year 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 Days 149 135 082 013 350 360 331 305 346 242 Year 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 0 0 Days 254 196 236 183 Nil Nil Nil Nil 0 0 9. The order dated 19.08.2011, whereby his case was rejected reads as under:- “Keeping in view of the above facts and circumstances the petitioner is not eligible for granting work charge status as he has not completed even a single year with 5 240 days in a calendar year prior to 31.12.1993 on daily wages as per ruling of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Mool Raj Upadhaya’s case. The petitioner has not completed 8 years continuous service with 240 days in each calendar year as such he is also not entitled for regularization as per policy of the State Government for regularization. Hence the request of Shri Mehboob Ali Ram regarding granting work charge status and to regularize his services is hereby rejected. So far as his reinstatement as a daily wager is concerned before engaging any new hands in future in the concerned Division as per availability of work and fund preference will be given to Shri Mehboob Ali.” 10. Merely, because some directions were issued on 28.08.2014 in CWP No.10458 of 2011 titled Mehboob Ali Vs. State of H.P. and others, as reproduced in para 3 which was withdrawn for consideration of the representation as such would not grant a fresh cause of action, in the absence of challenge to the basic order. 11. It has been held by the Apex Court in Government of India & Anr. Vs. P. Venkatesh (2019) 15 SCC 613 that the disposal Mantra of representations gives a fresh cause of action and the limitation gets revived in dead cases. This is exactly what has happened in the present litigation having withdrawn the writ petition, but after getting an order of deciding the representation has led to the litigation still continuing. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the benefit of regularization 6 could not be as such granted to him, in the absence of challenge to the order dated 19.08.2011. 12. The recommendation if any, as such by the official also on 04.02.2015 was as per the Recruitment & Promotion (R & P) Rules and regularization could not be granted to the persons, who were already out of service as per the mandays chart from the year 2007. 13. In such circumstances, the learned Single Judge has disallowed the benefit. Reliance upon the judgment passed in CWPOA No.848 of 2019 titled Daulat Ram Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors., decided on 23.09.2020 (Annexure A-4), which has now been sought to be placed by filing an application for placing the same on record to seek parity, would be of no assistance. 14. The counsel for the appellant has argued that vide office order dated 21.11.2017 (Annexure A-I), the petitioner’s case was also considered with Daulat Ram’s case, who also had worked upto 2007 and he has been granted necessary relief. 15. We have gone through the judgment of the Daulat Ram’s case (supra) also, which would go on to show that the said person had worked from the year 1998 to 2007. The learned Single Judge found that he had completed the requisite 7 08 years of service and his regularization was being denied on the ground of “lack of qualification”. 16. In such circumstances, directions were issued to confirm the work charge status upon the said person as he had completed 08 years of regular service for regularization of his services in terms of the policy. There is nothing on record to show as such that Daulat Ram had got a rejection order in his case like the petitioner way back in the year 2011 and which order has never subject matter of the challenge before the Tribunal in this round of litigation and also the fact that the petitioner had withdrawn his earlier case with liberty to file the representation. 17. Counsel for the State has also placed on record the copy of order dated 02.08.2023, passed by the learned Single Judge in Execution Petition No.59 of 2023 titled Sh. Daulat Ram Vs. State of H.P. and others, to point out that the Daulat Ram has been only given work charge status and he had never turned up and therefore, even the execution proceedings as such had been closed. The relevant paragrahs of the order dated 02.08.2023 reads as under:- “Having perused the reply filed by the respondents, this Court finds that mandate contained in the judgment sought to be executed stands duly complied with and as 8 such, nothing remains to be adjudicated in the present petition. 2. Though, Mr. A.K. Gupta, learned counsel representing the petitioner vehemently argued that in terms of the judgment sought to be executed, services of the petitioner were required to be regularized, but careful perusal of the reply filed by respondents clearly reveals that petitioner has not completed requisite period, enabling Department to regularize his services, whereas in terms of the mandate contained in the judgment alleged to have been violated, work charge status has been given to the petitioner w.e.f. 01.01.2006 to 31.12.2007, whereafter petitioner allegedly never turned up. 3. Consequently, in view of the above, nothing remains to be adjudicated in the present proceedings and accordingly same are closed. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings in appropriate Court of law qua the surviving grievance, if any.” 18. Keeping in view the above, the reliance upon Daulat Ram’s case (supra) is also misplaced. 19. In view of above, the present appeal stands dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s) if any, are accordingly disposed off. (G.S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice (Ranjan Sharma) Judge 29th July, 2025 (munish thakur)