Item No.S-8 The State of Himachal Pradesh and others vs. Surinder CMP(M) No.925 of 2026 17.06.2026 Present: Mr. Gobind Korla, Additional Advocate General, for the applicants-appellants/State. CMP(M) No.925 of 2026 Delay of 92 days in filing the present appeal is condoned in view of the averments made in the application duly supported by an affidavit. The application stands disposed of. LPA N o.______of 2026 It be registered. On taking steps within a week, issue notice to the respondents, returnable within four weeks. Inter alia contends that regularization of the petitioner has been ordered by the learned Single Judge, w.e.f. 16.03.2021, by giving him benefits, in terms of the Policy dated 28.12.2021 (Annexure P-7), whereby two years contractual service was the requirement. Learned Additional Advocate General firstly has submitted that if the said Policy is taken into consideration, the regularization has to be with prospective effect from the date of issuance of the regularization Policy, as per Clause-9 and it could not be prior in point of time w.e.f. 16.03.2021 as given by the learned Single Judge. Secondly, it is argued that the Policy which was applicable to the employees would be of 30.03.2021, which prescribed three years of continuous service, as on 30.09.2021. Since the employee was appointed on 22.09.2018 and the said Policy was also similar and the regularization would be with prospective effect and could be only after 30.09.2021. It is submitted that by virtue of the said order, the similarly situated persons who were appointed on the same date, i.e., 29.09.2018, would be regularized on different dates and the writ petitioner would steal a march over them. It is pointed out from the order dated 08.07.2024 (Annexure P-11) that six other employees were also appointed as Clerks in the said Department. For regularization as given to similarly situate persons who were regularized w.e.f. 08.10.2021, as per the stand taken by the State, in Paragraph-6 of the written statement, it is categorically clarified that the benefits of regularization to be granted to the writ petitioner w.e.f. 08.10.2021 would at par with his contemporaries, who were appointed on the same date, i.e., 27.09.2018. Keeping in view the above, we are of the considered opinion that the petitioner can only be granted the benefit of regularization with effect from the date his contemporaries as such were also granted the benefits w.e.f. 08.10.2021. The operation of the order of learned Single Judge to the extent that he has held out that the benefit of the leave granted to contractual employee, which is not permissible, shall remain stayed. Accordingly, present matter requires consideration. Admit. (G.S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice ( Bipin C. Negi ) June 17, 2026 (KS) Judge