1 2025:HHC:28017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CMP(M) No. 508 of 2025 and LPA No. 551 of 2025 Decided on: 18.08.2025 Kuldeep Kumar and others ......applicants/appellants Versus State of H.P. and others ...non-applicants/respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the applicants/appellants: Mr. Adarsh K. Vashista & Mr. Shivom Vashista, Advocates. For the respondents : Ms. Priyanka Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents No.1 and 2-State. Mr. Vikrant Thakur, Advocate, for respondent No.3. G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice (Oral) CMP(M) No. 508 of 2025 Keeping in view the averments made in the application, duly supported by an affidavit, delay of 122 days 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:28017 in filing the appeal is condoned. The application stands disposed of. LPA No. 551 of 2025 2. The present appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge in CWP No.11563 of 2024 titled Kuldeep Kumar and others vs. State of H.P. and others, decided on 04.11.2025. 3. The writ petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge, wherein there was a prayer seeking recommendation of the names of the writ petitioners for appointment against the PGT (Commerce) on contract basis from the date of declaration of the result on 21.11.2012 and that the appointment be treated as being given w.e.f December 2012 with all consequential benefits of seniority, annual increments, leave encashment and pensionary benefits for all intents and purposes with arrears of pay and allowances along with due and admissible interest, in the interest of justice. 3 2025:HHC:28017 4. The learned Single Judge found the writ to be patently suffering from delay and laches and accordingly dismissed the same with costs of Rs.25,000/- to be paid by the petitioners to the Himachal Pradesh State Legal Services Authority within a period of four weeks. 5. The learned Single Judge noticed that the appointment was offered on 02.07.2014 and the result had been declared on 21.11.2012 and therefore there was no justifiable reason to condone the delay of one decade and the employees were only taking a chance in the litigation and no cogent reasons have been spelled out in the writ petition for condoning the delay. 6. Counsel for the appellant has submitted that since there was recurring cause of action as such on account of the financial benefits, it is in such circumstances, the learned Single Judge was not justified in dismissing the writ petition. 7. A perusal of the writ petition would go on to show that apparently the case of the writ petitioners themselves was that there was some litigation pending bearing CWP No.8858 4 2025:HHC:28017 of 2012 along with connected matters titled Ramesh Kumar and others vs. State of H.P. and others, decided on 12.12.2012 and also the matter had been again pending by way of Review Petition No.4065 of 2013 along with connected matters titled Rajesh Kumar and others vs. Ramesh Kumar and others which was decided on 24.04.2014. There are specific averments made that only after a decision of the review petition, they were offered appointment. Once that is so and the petitioners themselves have averred the reason for delay in their application, we are of the considered opinion that the learned Single Judge was well justified in dismissing the writ petition in limine without calling for the reply, which is also one of the objections raised by the counsel for the appellant. 8. The fact remains that apart from the financial benefits, the appellants were also agitating for their seniority, which at the belated stage, cannot be granted at any cost, as it would unsettle the settled position with respect to other persons who were not even arrayed as respondents. The 5 2025:HHC:28017 principle of law has already been laid down way back by the Apex Court in P.S. Sadasivaswamy vs. The State of Tamil Nadu, (1975) 1 SCC 152, and followed consistently in other judgments, that a writ petition has to be filed within a period of six months from the date of cause of action. 9. Another interesting aspect here is that apparently petitioners were waiting that their regularization be done which was done in the year 2017 and only thereafter and also belatedly, they chose to seek the said relief in 2024 when they filed the writ petition. 10. In such circumstances, the observations made by the learned Single Judge that they were only taking a chance is justified and therefore we do not find any plausible reason to interfere in the well reasoned order. The limited extent of interference is that since reply had not been called for by the State and the matter was dismissed at the initial stage, the imposition of costs in such peculiar facts may not be justified. Accordingly, the imposition of costs of Rs.25,000/- is set aside. 6 2025:HHC:28017 11. Resultantly, we partly allow the appeal to that extent and the necessity to deposit the costs shall not be there. Copy of the said order be placed before the learned Single Judge on account of the compliance report to be made. 12. In view of the above, the appeal is partly allowed to the limited extent as mentioned hereinabove. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. ( G.S. Sandhawalia ) Chief Justice August 18 , 2025 ( Ranjan Sharma ) (ankit) Judge