IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA LPA No.328 of 2026 Decided on : _03.06.2026 Saroop Singh ... Appellant. Versus State of H.P. and others …Respondents. Coram Hon’ble Mr. Gurmeet Singh Sandhawalia, Chief Justice. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the appellant : Ms. Anjali Soni Verma, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Rakesh Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General. Bipin Chander Negi, Judge By way of the appeal, challenge has been laid to the impugned judgment dated 21.11.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in CWPOA No. 2046 of 2019 titled as Saroop Singh vs. State of H.P. and others, whereby the claim of the appellant seeking grant of work-charge status w.e.f. 2002, has been rejected. 2. Heard counsel for the parties & perused the writ record. 3. The appellant was engaged as a Daily Wage Beldar in the year 1994 with the Assistant Engineer, IPH Sub-Division, Nagrota Surian, District Kangra. The services of the appellant 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes -2- were disengaged in September, 1995, against which OA No. 1907 of 1995 was filed. In pursuance to the order passed therein in October, 1995, the appellant was re-engaged. 4. Subsequent thereto, CWP(T) No. 1635 of 2008, claiming regularization was filed by the appellant. The same was disposed of vide order dated 4.5.2010 with a direction to the authorities to consider the case of the appellant for regularization. The aforesaid claim was rejected by the Chief Engineer, IPH, Dharamshala Zone, on 12.5.2011. 5. A perusal of the office order dated 12.5.2011 (Annexure P-2 appended along with the writ petition) reveals that the appellant had worked intermittently and had not completed 240 days in the calendar years 1995-96, 2001 to 2006 and again in the year 2009. It is on the said count that the claim for regularization was rejected. It is pertinent to mention that the said order of rejection (Annexure P-2 appended along with the writ petition) was never assailed by the present appellant. 6. In the aforesaid backdrop, the appellant had filed CWP No. 1632 of 2015 claiming work-charge status with all consequential benefits as a Beldar w.e.f. the year 2002. On the establishment of the H.P. State Administrative Tribunal, the matter was transferred to the Tribunal. Subsequent to the abolition of the State Administrative Tribunal, the matter was transferred back to this Court and registered as CWPOA No. 2046 -3- of 2019. During the pendency of the proceedings, the appellant was granted work-charge status w.e.f. 23.3.2018 (Annexure P-7 appended along with the writ petition). 7. In the aforesaid proceedings, wherefrom the impugned judgment arises, a plea with respect to fictional breaks having been given to the appellant was raised. The same was correctly rejected by the learned Single Judge on the ground that it had been raised for the first time in the rejoinder and not in the main petition. Other than the aforesaid, the learned Single Judge correctly observed that the issue of fictional breaks involves a disputed question of fact which cannot be gone into in a writ proceedings. 8. Besides the aforesaid, the plea with respect to discrepancy in the number of mandays worked by the appellant is sought to be raised on a comparison of Annexure P-2 appended along with the writ petition, i.e. the rejection order and Annexure P-3 appended along with the writ petition, wherein details of the days worked by the appellant, obtained under the RTI Act, have been provided. 9. On a comparison of the two, it has been correctly observed by the learned Single Judge that for the years 1995 and 2001 to 2006, the appellant had not completed 240 days in each calendar year. The discrepancy between Annexures P-2 and P-3 appended along with the writ petition, insofar as the number of -4- mandays worked by the appellant is concerned, is only slight and pertains to the year 1996. Insofar as the year 2009 is concerned, no details qua the said year have been provided in Annexure P-3. Even from a perusal of Annexure P-3, i.e. the information provided under the RTI Act, it is evident that the appellant had not worked for the requisite number of years so as to claim regularization. 10. For the aforesaid reasons, we see no reason to interfere with the well-reasoned judgment passed by the learned Single Judge. The present appeal is dismissed, being devoid of any merit. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of. (G.S. Sandhawalia) (Bipin Chander Negi) Chief Justice Judge 3rd June, 2026 (Tarun Singh)