1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA LPA No.184 of 2026 Date of Decision : 06.04.2026 The State of Himachal Pradesh and others …… Appellants Versus Joti Thakur …… Respondent Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellants : Mr. Varun Chandel, Additional Advocate General. G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice (oral) The challenge in the present Letters Patent Appeal is to the judgment of learned Single Judge, passed in CWP No.2940 of 2024 titled Joti Thakur vs. State of H.P. and Others, decided on 27.08.2025 directing consideration of regularization of service of the petitioner after completion of six years of contractual service w.e.f. 06.01.2016, with all consequential benefits. However, learned Single Judge has restricted the financial benefits to three years prior to the date of filing of the writ petition. The directions have been issued keeping in view that in similar circumstances, in LPA No.153 of 2023, titled State of H.P. and Others vs. Sant Ram and another, relief had been granted, which had arisen out of CWPOA 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 No.3562 of 2019. The said order of the Co-ordinate Bench was then upheld by the Apex Court on 06.02.2025, in Civil Appeal No.1595 of 2025, titled State of Himachal Pradesh and others vs. Surajmani and another. 2. It is not disputed that in Sant Ram’s case (supra), the State has also preferred appeal being Civil Appeal No.1858 of 2025, titled State of Himachal Pradesh and others vs. Sant Ram, which was also decided along with Surajmani’s case (supra). The State has also preferred a review application which was dismissed on 03.02.2026. The review application was specific that the issue of regularization was the subject matter of the said case, whereas, in the Surajmani’s case (supra), the case was that of a work charge status, which aspect was rejected by the Apex Court. 3. Learned Additional Advocate General has vehemently submitted that preliminary objection has been taken in the reply filed by the State and it has been contended that the employee as such had approached the Court only in the year, 2024. The cause of action had arisen to the petitioner in the year, 2014 and there is a delay of 10 years. The perusal of the writ would go on to show that the petitioner was initially engaged in Swan River Integrated Watershed Development Project, (SRIWDP) as Group Organizer, way back in 25.07.2008 and she worked there till 30.06.2016. Thereafter, she was engaged by the H.P. Forest Ecosystem Climate Proofing Project (KfW Project) as Village Group Organizer from 01.11.2016 to 30.09.2017 and now she is working in the Integrated Development Project for Source Sustainability and Climate 3 Resilient Rainfed Agriculture (IDP) as Social Extension Officer from 09.03.2018 till date and there was objection that she was never an employee of the Forest Department/H.P. Government. 4. It is thus admitted case of the petitioner that the employee’s services have been taken from 2008 onwards with nominal breaks. A period of almost 18 years have now passed and the petitioner has been continuously employed in the Forest Department. 5. In such circumstances, the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Jaggo vs. Union of India and others, along-with connected matter, (2024) SCC Online SC 3826 and Dharam Singh vs. Union of India and others, 2025 INSC 998 would come in to play. The State is under bounden duty to give the benefits of regularization to such employees who have rendered long and continuous service. In LPA No.841 of 2025, titled State of H.P. and others vs. Bhupinder Singh Mehta and others, we have also upheld such order of learned Single Judge pertaining to regularization, whereby the employees of the Societies primarily working under the control of Forest Department have been granted the benefits of regularization by the learned Single Judge. Learned Single Judge has protected the interest of the State to the extent of granting the benefits only three years prior to the filing of the petition. Therefore, the objection of the State that the petition has been filed after a delay of 10 years is out of place. Even otherwise, once the employee continued in the services, he is entitled to the benefit of regularization. 4 6. Resultantly, we find no reason to interfere in the impugned judgment passed by learned Single Judge, in CWP No.2940 of 2024, decided on 27.08.2025. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed, so also, the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. ( G.S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice ( Bipin Chander Negi) April 06, 2026 (KS) Judge