2025:HHC:6728 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA LPA No.481 of 2024 Decided on:18.03.2025 __________________________________________________________ Ashish Sharma ...Appellant Versus Himachal Pradesh Forest Department Corporation Limited & Anr. ….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. A.K. Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Vinod Kumar Gupta, Advocate for Mr. D.S. Kainthla, Advocate. G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice [Oral] Present appeal is directed against the order of learned Single Judge, passed in Civil Writ Petition No.11011 of 2024, titled as Ashish Sharma Versus H.P. State Forest Development Corporation Limited & another, decided on 06.11.2024, whereby request of the appellant as such for re-engagement and accepting his joining as unskilled worker and to treat the period when he was on leave on account of illness as leave of kind due was rejected by learned Single Judge, on the ground of delay and laches. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2025:HHC:6728 - 2 - 2. It was noticed by learned Single Judge that the appellant was engaged as unskilled worker on 13.04.2022 and apparently he never attended the job after 22.04.2022. The absence is sought to be covered till August 2022, when he allegedly reported to the authority by filing necessary representations and alleging that he was suffering from Jaundice for the intervening period of four months. The certificate itself was doubted by learned Single Judge issued by a Retired Ayurvedic Medical Officer. It was also noticed that petitioner never intimated his employer that he had fallen sick and his first representation was made only after the date of certificate on 12.08.2022 and the second representation was made again after 1½ years on 15.03.2024 which led to filing of the Writ Petition in September 2024. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the aforesaid representations should have been directed to be decided. 4. We have gone through the writ file. The appointment as such was on compassionate ground on daily-wage basis, with the Respondent-Corporation as Class-IV employee. In such circumstances, the appellant was being paid only Rs.300/- per day or liable to be paid 2025:HHC:6728 - 3 - as per the amount which was paid from time to time by the State Government. The appointment itself as such is on consideration that the writ petitioner would be presenting himself on a daily-wage basis with Respondent- Corporation, so that they may take work from him. 5. Having as such chosen to step back for the period of four months and to ignore his obligations and then as such seek directions against the Respondent- Corporation, that these representations should have been decided regarding the factum that the appellant had himself only worked for a period of 10 days, on daily wage basis. 6. Thus, in the absence of any permanency or right or statutory rules which may govern the terms of appointment, the appellant cannot seek any positive directions from the Writ Court in the form of Mandamus. 7. We are of the considered opinion that in view of the facts and circumstances and the period of service rendered by the appellant as such of 10 days with Respondent-Corporation and the period of absence, without any valid cause as per the findings recorded by learned Single Judge, there is no question of law as such which arises for consideration and there is no scope for 2025:HHC:6728 - 4 - interference. 8. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed alongwith miscellaneous application(s), if any. (G.S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice (Ranjan Sharma) Judge March 18, 2025 [Bhardwaj/Chiranjeev]