2026:HHC:24132 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA LPA No. 73 of 2020 Decided on : 20.06.2026 The State of Himachal Pradesh and others …Appellants Versus Shri Dharamvir Sharma …Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin C. Negi, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the appellants : Mr. Gobind Korla, Additional Advocate General. For the respondent : M/s Onkar Jairath, Piyush Mehta and Anshul Jairath, Advocates. G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice (Oral ) The State seeks consideration of the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge in Civil Writ Petition O.A No. 60 of 2019, titled Dharam Vir Sharma Vs. State of H.P. and others, dated 02.03.2020 (Annexure A-1), whereby the learned Single Judge had allowed the writ petition and directed regularization of the services of the petitioner-respondent herein on completion of 10 years of continuous service and also condoned the period of absence from duty. Further, a direction had been issued to recalculate his apposite qualifying period of service and thereafter, afford him all the requisite benefits. 1Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2026:HHC:24132 2. Counsel for the State submits that the requisite period i.e. from 19.12.1987 to 06.03.1990 had already been condoned by the Department. He further submits that his initial appointment on daily wage basis with effect from 1986 to 1990 in the IP&H Department was without any proof and he remained on medical leave from 19.12.1987 to 06.03.1990 i.e. for a period of 2 years and 2 months. His initial appointment in the Public Wealth Department as such was as a Helper. While referring to the details of the man-days chart (Annexure R-1), it is pointed out that he had also served as a Mechanic from 07.03.1990 to 31.05.1995. It was only thereafter, that he was appointed as a Junior Engineer (Mechanical) with effect from 01.06.1995 till 04.05.2005 and the 10 years period had accordingly been rightly counted. 3. Counsel for the State further submits that vide letter dated 08.04.2005 (Annexure R-2), there was a regularization done for daily wage Junior Engineers and it was found that the appellant was marginally short of 10 years of service as Junior Engineer by about three months, which was relaxed as per policy as a special case, taking into account long years of continuous service rendered in the lower post without any break. 4. Accordingly, it has been argued that only on account of the representation filed in the month of October, 2015, followed 3 2026:HHC:24132 up with the original application before the Tribunal in 2015, a litigation was initiated. A specific plea was taken regarding the limitation aspect also in the reply, which was not dealt with by the learned Single Judge. It is thus submitted that the factual matrix was not kept in mind while allowing the writ petition, which was dehors the relief which was claimed in the original application, primarily for regularizing the services of the employee-petitioner with effect from August, 1996, on completion of 10 years of continuous service, with all consequential benefits and to grant of pension etc. 5. It is thus submitted that working in different Departments and also on different posts, would be an important issue to be taken into consideration, which aspect was not addressed by the learned Single Judge. 6. Keeping in view the above, we are of the considered opinion that the judgment as such, is not sustainable in the eyes of law and the issue of non-challenging the order dated 08.04.2005, which had been thereafter followed up on 05/06.05.2005 and the applicant as such, being offered the post of the Junior Engineer (Mechanical) had never been subject matter of challenge before the Tribunal. Therefore, all the said issues would require to be heard afresh. 7. In such circumstances, we have no option but to set 4 2026:HHC:24132 aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge and remand the matter for re-consideration on the issues above. 8. Resultantly, the present appeal is allowed. The matter is remanded to the learned Single Judge for re- consideration. 9. Parties to put appearance on 15.07.2026 before the learned Single Judge. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly. (G.S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice (Bipin C. Negi) Judge June 20, 2026 (Shivank Thakur)