2025:HHC:36875 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA LPA No.679 of 2025 Decided on: 31.10.2025 __________________________________________________________ Sarojni Devi ...Appellant. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others ...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. Karan Singh Parmar, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Arsh Rattan, Deputy Advocate General. G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice[Oral] Consideration in the present Letters Patent Appeal has been sought of the judgment dated 01.07.2025 passed by learned Single Judge in CWPOA No.7955 of 2019, titled Sarojni Devi versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others, whereby, the learned Single Judge has declined to grant benefits of regularization from 27.06.1995 instead of 16.08.2010, when the benefit was granted. 2. Learned Single Judge was of the opinion that 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2025:HHC:36875 - 2 - regularization could only be done against the sanctioned post and nothing has been brought on record that despite availability of the vacant sanctioned post, regularization was not ordered. 3. It was noticed that on closure of two similar Institutions in Chamba and Mandi, the posts had been transferred to the Ashram and the post of Craft Teacher had become available, against which the petitioner was appointed and keeping in view the fact that as per regularization policy of the State Government, regularization could only be against availability of the vacancy against the sanctioned post. Without there being any violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, as such, it was held that the petitioner was to make out a case for regularization from the date prior to the sanctioned post. 4. It is not disputed that the petitioner was working with the Ashram from 01.07.1995 and the said Ashram had been taken over on 11.03.1998 by the State. The order of regularization dated 16.08.2010 placed on record, would show that the petitioner had never objected to the regularization granted at that point of 2025:HHC:36875 - 3 - time. 5. Perusal of the order of regularization would go on to show that regularization was done on the recommendations of the Department Screening Committee and in pursuance to Department of Personnel’s Letter No.PER(AP)-C-F(1)-1/2010, dated 07.05.2010 and consequent upon the approval of the Government vide letter No.SJ&E-C(15)-3/2008, dated 06.07.2010, the services of appellant-Sarojani Devi working as Warden on fixed basis in the said Ashram, at Masli, was regularized as Craft Teacher in the pay scale of Rs.5910-20200+2400 Grade Pay with immediate effect. 6. 6. Apparently, the petitioner, as such, had never challenged the said regularization within the prescribed period and it was only after a period of three years by filing CWP No.5622 of 2013-C wherein, directions were sought to examine her case whether she was liable to be regularized from an earlier date on 27.06.1995, while noticing the earlier history that earlier direction had also been issued to consider her case for regularization in CWP-T No.986 of 2008, followed by COPC No.410 of 2025:HHC:36875 - 4 - 2011 for implementation. 7. It was in such circumstances that the order came to be passed by the Department, rejecting the case of the appellant on 07.05.2015, on the ground that consideration could only be done after 8 years service. It is settled principle as laid down by the Constitutional Bench in Secretary, State of Karnataka and others versus Uma Devi (2006) 4 SCC 01, that regularization is not a matter of right and only flows from a policy decision of the State Government and it can only done against the sanctioned posts. 8. In such circumstances, regularization had been granted way-back in pursuance to the earlier directions for consideration in the year 2010, when the issue had died its death. The petitioner got it revived by filing a petition in the year 2013 for seeking reconsideration from the earlier date without even challenging the earlier order for regularization. 9. In such circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the matter had long been finalized way back in 2010 and therefore, the subsequent directions, as such, could not have further extended the 2025:HHC:36875 - 5 - period of limitation, keeping in view the law laid down in Government of India and another Versus P. Venkatesh, (2019) 15 SCC 613, that the directions to decide the representation only open up stale claims and the mantra ‘decide my representation’ is not an appropriate methodology for resolving the litigations. A representation on issue of fresh consideration as such cannot over and above condone the delay for the subsequent rejection on 07.05.2015 when the alleged cause of action is sought to be highlighted. 10. In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that the original application was liable to be rejected on the ground of delay and laches, apart from the fact that there was no vested right as such keeping in view the law laid down by the Constitutional Bench of the Apex Court in the case of Uma Devi (supra). 11. Resultantly, we do not find any ground to interfere in the well reasoned order passed by learned Single Judge. Therefore, in view of the above discussion, the instant appeal is dismissed being devoid of any merit. 12. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. 2025:HHC:36875 - 6 - (G.S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice (Ranjan Sharma) Judge 31st October, 2025 [himani/bhardwaj]