1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA LPA No.17 of 2026 Date of Decision : 25.02.2026 Ashok Kumar and others …… Appellants Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Others …… Respondents 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. Ajay Sharma, Senior Advocate with Mr. Karan Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Pranay Pratap Singh, Additional Advocate General, for respondents No.1 to 4/State. Mr. Rajesh Kashyap, Advocate, for respondent No.5. G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice (Oral) The present Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the order dated 07.11.2025 of learned Single Judge, passed in CWP No.6947 of 2022, whereby, the writ petition filed by the petitioners was dismissed, in which, they were seeking the relief of regularization against the respondent-Trust. The reason which weighed in the mind of learned Single Judge, while upholding the order dated 04.07.2022 (Annexure P-8), passed by the Commissioner Temple Chintpurni-cum-Deputy Commissioner, Una, respondent No.3 was that there was nothing on 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 record to suggest that the petitioners were ever given appointment by the Officer of the Temple Trust, except one Kuldeep Chand. The factum of appointment of Kuldeep Chand also had been denied by the Temple Trust on the ground that the payment had been made to a different person namely Kuldeep Chand, who is not petitioner/appellant No.2, herein. 2. Reliance upon the similarly situated persons granted benefit, as such, in Jagdish Chand’s case was distinguished by the learned Single Judge on the ground that the said persons had been relieved from the duties and had thereafter been re-engaged on account of the award of Labour Court and, whereas, there is nothing on record in the present case that the present persons were appointed by the Temple Trust. 3. Keeping in view the fact that there was absence of relationship between employer-employee, the benefit has been declined and we do not find any plausible reason to take a different view once the fact itself is disputed and it would not be possible as such to grant regularization to a set of persons/appellants who were never even employees of the Trust. 4. It is pertinent to note that in the first round of litigation, petitioners had approached this Court by filing a petition being CWP No.3925 of 2019, praying that directions be issued to enter the names of the petitioners as Sewadars in the attendance register and to regularize the services, which was dismissed on 22.09.2021. The Co-Ordinate Bench, as such, had come to the conclusion that the petitioners were volunteers to such services being Sewadars and the plea that they had 3 been engaged since 2002-03 was not accepted and it was rather held that the documents accompanying the petition indicate that the petitioners had been working off and on gratuitously and therefore, they were not entitled for the said relief. 5. However, petitioners got a new lease of life on account of filing of a review petition being Review Petition No.37 of 2021, whereby, vide order dated 06.05.2022, permission was given to file representation and to be decided in a time bound manner while disposing of the same keeping in view the earlier observations made in CWP No.4657 of 2014, decided on 18.07.2014 which pertained to award of the Labour Court which was the case of the engagement of labourers on daily wage basis and the matter as such had been submitted for consideration before the Labour Court titled as Jagdish Chand and others vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, as mentioned earlier. The Co-ordinate Bench, however, had given liberty as such that representation would be decided uninfluenced by the earlier orders, passed on 22.09.2021. 6. Apparently, on that basis, the representation then was decided by passing a speaking order dated 04.07.2022 by the Deputy Commissioner being the Commissioner of the Temple, therein. All the documents as such were taken on record and the Jagdish Chand’s case, on which reliance was placed, was specifically taken into consideration and the said respondent came to the conclusion that the employees had been regularized on the basis of the orders of this Court passed in CWP No.4657 of 2014, dated 18.07.2014. It was accordingly held that in 4 contrast there is no such record of the engagement of the petitioners by the Temple Trust and the documents produced was only of suspension of leave during Navratree Fair and the copies of the representation made to different authorities. No engagement, attendance record, proof of payment for services had been produced by the appellants. Thus, the Deputy Commissioner came to the conclusion that there is statutory procedure as appointment has to be governed by the Act, as such and there is a complete process for engagement of employees by taking the exam by the Temple Trust, which is in accordance with the Recruitment and Promotion Rules applicable to the Temple Trust. The said order dated 04.07.2022 was, thus, subject matter of challenge by filing the writ petition, out of which the present appeal has arisen. 7. We have also gone through the writ petition and we are not convinced with the arguments of learned counsel that there are identity cards placed on record and there are some documents to show that the appellants, as such, were handling some receipt book. There is nothing to show that any appointment order was ever issued to the petitioners and neither any averments made that the petitioners were drawing certain amount of salary which has been deposited in their accounts. 8. In the absence of basic averments/pleadings regarding the fact of employment and getting the remuneration on regular basis, regularization cannot be claimed since the specific case is that they are working since 2003-05. 5 9. It is hard to believe that all these long years and till the order was passed by the official respondent rejecting their claim, the petitioners brought nothing on record to show that they were receiving any remuneration for 20 years. In absence of the basic documentation placed on record, it cannot also be considered as the writ Court would not go into the disputed questions of fact. 10. The specific stand of the respondents also in the reply was that there is neither any appointment letter nor any communication of appointment with the Temple Officer and the averment made in Paragraph-9 regarding the identity cards etc. was specifically stated to be false, fabricated and result of afterthought. 11. In such circumstance, we are of the considered view that the learned Single Judge did not err in declining the regularization in the absence of the relationship of the employer-employee having not been proved. Even otherwise, learned Single Judge has also relied upon the Constitutional Bench judgment in Secretary, State of Karnataka and others vs. Umadevi and others, (2006) 4 SCC 1, and specifically held that regularization has to be done on the basis of the policy, as such and in the absence of the same, no such order can be passed. 12. It is clear that if there was subsequent material or record, if the employees had worked for consistently long period and if there was no dispute of such relationship between employer-employee, as such, they would be entitled for the same in the presence of a Policy/Clause. Once 6 the basic relationship of the employer-employee is missing, the appeal cannot be allowed to grant the relief as claimed. 13. In view of above, present appeal is dismissed, so also, pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. ( G.S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice ( Bipin Chander Negi) February 25, 2026 (KS/ST) Judge