2025:HHC:1788 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No. 619 of 2025 Decided on : 08.01.2025 Rakesh Kumar Sharma and another. …Petitioners Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others. …Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. Aman Parth Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, Additional Advocate General. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this writ petition, the petitioners have, inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs:- “i) That impugned office order dated 05.03.2021 (Annexure P-3) may kindly be quashed and set aside in the interest of justice and fair play. (ii) That respondents may kindly be directed to take over the services of the petitioners as Instructor Employability Skill on contract basis, in terms of notification dated 03.10.2015, from the due date with all consequential benefits.” 1Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:1788 2. The order, which is impugned by way of this writ petition is dated 05.03.2021. The order was passed by the Authority in the terms of the directions, which were issued by this Court, in the earlier writ petition filed by the petitioner i.e. CWP No. 4375 of 2020, titled Varun Sharma Vs. State of H.P. & Ors. And CWP No. 3761 of 2020, titled Rakesh Kumar Sharma Vs. State of H.P. & Ors. 3. The Court questioned the learned counsel as to how do the petitioners explain the delay of 3 years and 10 months in assailing the order. Learned counsel submits that the petitioners were under the impression that there may be a change in the Policy of the State Government and, therefore, they did not approach the Court earlier. 4. This Court is of the considered view that this is no explanation to condone the delay of almost 4 years in assailing the impugned order. In fact, the earlier order was passed by the Authorities in the light of the directions that were passed by this Court, in the petitions, preferred by the petitioners. In case, the petitioners were really aggrieved by the order, which was passed on 05.03.2024, they ought to have assailed the same 3 2025:HHC:1788 forthwith or within some reasonable time. The delay of 3 years and 10 months cannot be said to be reasonable, as now, in the light of the fact that the order has attained finality, the Court is not interested in raking up a stale issue. 5. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed, on the ground of delay and latches. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge January 08, 2025 (Shivank Thakur)