IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No.7100 of 2023 Decided on: 28.10.2025 _________________________________________________________________ Shakuntla Devi ....Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. …Respondents _________________________________________________________________ Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua 1 Whether approved for reporting? _________________________________________________________________ For the petitioner: Mr. Vinay Mehta and Mr. Devi Singh Verma, Advocates. For the respondents: Ms. Menka Raj Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Petitioner filed this writ petition after her superannuation, seeking direction to the respondents to confer upon her daily wage status w.e.f. the year 2005 instead of the year 2007 and thereafter to consequently regularize her services w.e.f. the year 2012 instead of the year 2015. 2. Heard. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that she was 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes - 2 - engaged as Sweeper on part-time basis by the respondents in September 1995; Daily wage status was conferred upon her in October 2007; Her services were regularized on 30.06.2015. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is entitled to the benefit of Soma Devi Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others2, wherein directions were given to the respondents to give daily wage status to the petitioner therein from the date she had completed ten years of continuous service as part-time Sweeper with further direction to consider the case of the petitioner therein for regularization from the date she completed eight years’ of continuous service as daily wage Sweeper. 4. Soma Devi2 was decided on 02.05.2014. Services of the present petitioner were admittedly regularized much thereafter i.e. under office order dated 30.06.2015. No steps were taken by the petitioner either to represent to the respondents for seeking the relief of retrospective conferment of daily wage status upon her w.e.f. the year 2005 instead of 2007 and consequent regularization of her services w.e.f. the year 2012 instead of the year 2015. Admittedly, the 2 CWP No.2808 of 2014, decided on 02.05.2014 - 3 - petitioner had not even taken legal recourse for the redressal of her grievances at the relevant time. What to speak of, taking appropriate action when cause of action allegedly accrued in her favour i.e. in the year 2005, but even after regularization of petitioner’s services under order dated 30.06.2015, no effort was made by the petitioner to seek the relief which she is now claiming. Petitioner accepted her regularization order for almost nine years and instituted this writ petition on 15.07.2023, at the age of 59 years after her superannuation. The claim of the petitioner is hit by delay and laches, which have not been explained in the writ petition. 5. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the present writ petition. Permission granted. The present writ petition is accordingly dismissed as withdrawn. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge October 28, 2025 R.Atal