2025:HHC:19439 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA LPA No. 76 of 2025 Decided on: 23.05.2025 __________________________________________________________ State of Himachal Pradesh and others Appellants Versus Dishant Kumar ...Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge 1Whether approved for reporting? For the appellants: Ms. Priyanka Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. For the respondent: Ms. Nikita Khidtta, Advocate. Per Ranjan Sharma, Judge State of Himachal Pradesh being the appellant(s), have come up before this Court, in Letters Patent Appeal, assailing the judgment passed in CWP No. 6630 of 2021, titled Dishant Kumar versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others, decided on 04.04.2024 [herein referred to as the Impugned Judgment], wherein the order dated 07.07.2021, [Annexure P-10] rejecting the case of the Respondent- Employee, Dishant Kumar being the petitioners before 2025:HHC:19439 - 2 - the Writ Court, for regularization was quashed and set-aside; with, directions to the appellants to consider the case of the respondent herein fresh, for the purpose of regularization, in light of observations made hereinabove and to pass appropriate orders within a period of eight weeks from today. 2. Case of the Respondent-Employee, Dishant Kumar herein, is that he was engaged as a daily wage Sweeper (Class-IV) employee in the Government Post Graduate College, Nahan w.e.f. 10.11.2010 and since then, he had been performing the duties of a Daftri/Peon/Chowkidar in Arts Block of said College continuously without any break. In terms of the policy framed by the State Government for regularization of services of the daily wage employees, the petitioner had made representation but without any action thereon. Resultantly, the Respondent filed an Original Application No. 5821 of 2017 before the erstwhile Himachal Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal, which later on, was transferred to this Court and was registered as CWPOA No.3162 of 2020, titled Dishant Kumar versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others and Learned 2025:HHC:19439 - 3 - Division Bench of this Court disposed of the said petition on 16.10.2020, [Annexure P-6 in writ file], in the following terms:- “In aftermath, the espousal of the petitioner, is, meritworthy, and, if within the ambit of the opposite policy, the petitioner has completed the requisite period of service, under the respondents, thereupon, the respondents are directed, to forthwith make an order of regularization in service of the petitioner, against the apposite substantive post, along with all incidental thereto benefits. The writ petition is allowed, and all the pending applications also stand disposed of.” 3. Pursuant to the directions dated 16.10.2020, [Annexure P-6], the Director Higher Education passed an order on 07.07.2021 [Annexure P-10 in writ file] rejecting the case of the petitioner, for regularization only on the ground, that the petitioner had been engaged as Class-IV employee by the Principal of the college at his own level without any approval/permission from the concerned authority and against a non-created/non- sanctioned post, therefore, he was not covered under the policy of regularization because only those incumbents are entitled for regularization who had been appointed as per Government approved policy and against the sanctioned/created post. 2025:HHC:19439 - 4 - 4. Feeling aggrieved against the rejection orders dated 07.07.2021 [Annexure P-10] and his non- regularization, the appellant herein, approached the writ Court, for grant of following substantive relief:- “(i) That the impugned order dated 07.07.2021 (Annexure P-10) may kindly be quashed and set aside and further respondents may kindly be directed to regularize the petitioner immediately after completion of 7 years as per the policy of dated 28.06.2014 will all consequential benefits. 5. After analysis the material on record, the Learned Writ Court set aside the impugned order dated 07.07.2021 (Annexure P-10), whereby, case of the petitioner for the purpose of regularization had been rejected. It was noticed that reason that had been given in the impugned order as to why the services of the petitioner could not be regularized, was not sustainable in the eyes of law. Earlier, the petitioner had preferred an Original Application with a prayer for regularization of his services, wherein, the respondents had taken the same defence, but this Court at that stage also, negated the stand taken by the respondents and directed the respondents to consider the case of the 2025:HHC:19439 - 5 - petitioner for regularization, if it was within the ambit of the policy for regularization. Meaning thereby, after the judgment passed by Learned Division Bench, which had attained finality, this issue was no longer open for agitation on behalf of the respondents. 6. Further, even, the Learned Writ Court was bound by the judgment passed by the Learned Division Bench. The learned writ Court, in the facts and circumstances of the case, has rightly observed that the adjudication by the learned Division Bench that the case of the petitioner be considered within the ambit of the policy for regularization had to be construed that in case the petitioner was fulfilling the criteria set out for regularization i.e. the requisite number of years and requisite number of days in each of the calendar year(s) along-with educational qualification, if any, then the respondents would be bound to regularize the services of the petitioner and there was no occasion to sit over the judgment passed by the learned Division Bench and reject the case of the petitioner on the same plea. 7. Learned counsel for the Respondent-Dishant Kumar places reliance on the judgment dated 2025:HHC:19439 - 6 - 11.12.2024 passed by another Coordinate Division Bench of this Court, in LPA No.456 of 2024, in Re: State of Himachal Pradesh and others versus Balbir Singh, in which, the Judgment passed by Learned Writ Court was upheld, by dismissing the aforesaid LPA, by quashing the rejection orders which were passed on the same date and with the same plea. Since the factual and legal matrix in instant appeal is also identical, therefore, this Court sees no reason to take a different view, in the instant appeal. CONCLUSION AND DIRECTIONS: 8. In view of the above discussion, and for the reasons recorded hereinabove, the instant appeal is dismissed, in the following terms: (i) Instant appeal [i.e. LPA No. 76 of 2025] shall stand dismissed; (ii) The impugned judgment dated 04.04.2024 passed by Learned Single Judge in CWP No.6630 of 2021, titled Dishant Kumar versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others is upheld; (iii) Appellants are mandated to reconsider the case of the Respondent-Employee herein, for regularization in light of the applicable regularization policies; in view of the observations made in Paras 5 to 7 supra; within two months from today; (iv) Parties to bear respective costs. 2025:HHC:19439 - 7 - In aforesaid terms, the instant appeal is disposed of and all pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of, accordingly. (G.S. Sandhawalia) (Ranjan Sharma) Chief Justice Judge 23rd May, 2025 [himani]