1 2025:HHC:14071 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA LPA No. 79 of 2025 Date of decision: 14.05.2025 _______________________________________________________ Shobha Ram …..Appellant Versus State of H.P. & 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. Karan Kapoor, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Gobind Korla, Additional Advocate General. G.S. Sandhawalia , Chief Justice (Oral) In this Letters Patent Appeal, the appellant- writ petitioner challenges the order dated 23.12.2024, passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP No. 8571 of 2022, whereby the writ petition was dismissed on the ground of delay and laches as the writ petitioner had prayed for regularization w.e.f. from 2001 and the writ petition had been filed in the year 2022. While 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 dismissing the writ petition, the learned Single Judge held as under:- “Taking into consideration the fact that the relief, being prayed for by the petitioner, is for regularization w.e.f. 2001 and the writ petition has been filed in the year 2022, this petition being grossly hit by delays and latches, is dismissed. Pending, miscellaneous application(s), if any, stand disposed of accordingly.” 2. We are of the considered opinion that the merits of the case were liable to be considered by the learned Single Judge, since apparently, the respondents-State had regularized the services of the appellant-petitioner w.e.f. 10.10.2007 and he was still in service, when he had filed the writ petition claiming regularization of his services from an earlier date, i.e., 01.01.2001. The petitioner had retired from service on 31.05.2024 during the pendency of the writ petition. Thus, the regularization from an earlier date as such would have entitled the petitioner-appellant herein, for enhanced retiral benefits as he had a continues cause of action and the final relief could have been modulated by restricting the arrears, if any payable. 3 The learned Single Judge as such, while giving the aforesaid reason for dismissing the writ petition, has failed to keep in mind the aforesaid facts. 3. The learned Single Judge has also failed to notice that the stand as such of the respondents was that he was entitled to work charge status on completion of 8 years service, i.e. on 31.12.2004 and the said benefit has been granted to him only w.e.f. 01.01.2005 vide office order dated 20.04.2023 (Annexure R-III). The said order had apparently been passed during the pendency of the writ petition. The writ petitioner had also filed rejoinder (sic replication) to the reply filed by the respondents, wherein he had averred that he had wrongly been granted work charge status w.e.f. 01.01.2005, whereas he was entitled to regularization w.e.f. 01.01.2001, after completion of 10 years’ continuous service, but the learned Single Judge has failed to keep this aspect in mind, while passing the impugned order. 4. There is a specific averment made in the writ petition that the respondents have marked zero 4 attendance of the petitioner in the years 1998 and 1999 and the petitioner had been deprived of his right of regularization after completing 10 years of continuous service, but the learned Single Judge has lost sight of this fact. 5. Thus, we are of the considered opinion that the case of the petitioner-appellant would have been decided on merits, rather than rejecting the same as such on the ground of delay and laches. More so, during the pendency of the writ petition itself, the respondents had specifically passed order dated 20.04.2023 (Annexure R-III) granting work-charge status to the petitioner from retrospective date, i.e. 01.01.2005. Therefore, the cause of the writ petitioner was still alive before the respondents. 6. In view of the above, we allow the appeal and the order dated 23.12.2024, passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP No. 8571 of 2022, is quashed and set aside. Accordingly, the matter is remanded to the learned Single Judge, for deciding the same afresh. 5 7. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (G.S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice. May 14, 2025 (Ranjan Sharma) (hemlata) Judge.