( 2026:HHC:19753-DB ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No.3083 of 2020 Decided on: 25th May, 2026 Parveen Kumar Sharma .......Petitioner versus State of H.P and others ...Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr.Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner: Mr.Rajesh Kumar, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr.Hemant Kumar Verma, Deputy Advocate General. Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge (Oral) The petitioner, by way of present petition, has prayed for the following substantive reliefs: “i. That the writ in the nature of mandamus or other writ, order or direction, directing the respondent to extent the benefits of regularization immediately after completion of the 8 years contract service of the petitioner i.e from the date of initial appointment on 16.12.1998 after clubbing the retrenchment period in view of the judgment passed by this Hon'ble Court and further kindly be directed the respondents to regularize the service of the petitioner from 16.12.2006 after completing 8 years service alongwith all consequential benefits i.e. the seniority and other monitory benefits as 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? ( 2026:HHC:19753-DB ) 2 extended in CWP No.3255 of 2009 titled as Munna Lal Gupta Vs. State of H.P.” 2. The facts, which emerge from the pleadings, are that the petitioner was initially appointed as Lecturer Geography (School Cadre), as per office order dated 10.12.1998 (Annexure P-1). However, his services were terminated vide office order dated 27.02.1999 (Annexure P-2). Thereafter, the petitioner was again re-engaged, as per office order dated 01.04.1999 (Annexure P-3), however, later on, his services were terminated, vide office order dated 23.05.2000 (Annexure P-4). Thereafter, the petitioner, whose services were terminated on joining by a regular hand, was again appointed vide office order dated 17.04.2001 (Annexure P-5) Later on, his services were regularized vide office order dated 27.07.2010 (Annexure P-6) w.e.f. 31.03.2010. 3. The grievance of the petitioner, as raised in the petition is that his services ought to have been regularized, immediately after completion of eight years’ contract service from the date of initial appointment i.e. 10.05.1998, after clubbing the retrenchment period. The action on the part of the respondents by regularizing the services of the petitioner on 27.07.2010, instead of 16.12.2006, is patently illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory besides violative of Articles 14, 16 ( 2026:HHC:19753-DB ) 3 and 21 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner has also placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court passed in LPA No.146 of 2010, titled, State of Himachal Pradesh and others vs. Narain Singh along-with connected appeals/petitions, decided on 01.09.2015. 4. The respondents filed short reply and averred that the case of the petitioner was considered in view of the decision of this Court passed in LPA No.146 of 2010 and thereafter an office order was issued on 16.09.2021, when the services of the petitioner were regularized at par with his junior(s) contractual, who have been regularized w.e.f. 31.12.2008 and his services were also regularized w.e.f. the said date. 5. The petitioner has not filed any rejoinder to the reply filed by the respondents. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record carefully. 7. Once as per office order dated 16.09.2021, the services of the petitioner were regularized w.e.f. 31.12.2008 at par with his junior contractual appointees, who have also been regularized from the said date, the relief claimed by the petitioner has partly been accepted. The claim of the ( 2026:HHC:19753-DB ) 4 petitioner to regularize his services from the initial date of appointment cannot be considered, in view of the fact that his services were terminated on 27.02.1999 and 23.05.2000 and he did not assail those orders. Since the petitioner had only discharged his duties continuously after issuance of office order dated 17.04.2001, the period prior to that, cannot be considered for the purpose of granting regularization to him. Furthermore, once the petitioner had based his claim on the basis of judgment passed in Narain Singh’s case, referred above and further the respondents have considered his claim and regularized his services from the date when his juniors have been regularized, the claim put-forth by the petitioner to regularize his services from the initial date of appointment, cannot be acceded to and the same is hereby rejected. 8. Consequently, I do not find any merit in the present writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. ( Jiya Lal Bhardwaj ) 25th May, 2026 Judge (naveen)