2026:HHC:28362 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.9201 of 2024 Decided on: 13.07.2026 Sanjeev Kumar Gupta … Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others … Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 ____________________________________________________ _ For the petitioner: Mr. Chandranarayana Singh and Dr. Nidhi Singh, Advocates. For the respondents: Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, Additional Advocate General, for respondents No.1 to 3. Mr. Susheel Gautam, Advocate, for respondents No.4 and 5. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs:- “i) Issue a writ of Certiorari, Mandamus, or other appropriate writ order or directions quashing the impugned Order dated 18.10.2011 (Annexure P-9) Order dated 17.07.2020 (Annexure P-13), Order dated 29.10.2020 (Annexure P-15) for all intents and purposes. ii) Issue a writ of Mandamus or other appropriate writ order or direction directing the respondents to grant the benefit of Work Charge Status and Regularization to the Petitioner from the due date, after completion of eight/ten years of regular daily wage service i.e. w.e.f. 01.01.1999 in terms of the Regularization Policy of the Respondent State, with all consequential benefits. iii) Accordingly Issue a writ of Mandamus or other appropriate writ order or direction directing the 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2026:HHC:28362 respondents to re-fix the pay of the Petitioner and pay the entire consequential service benefits in favour of the Petitioner with in time bound manner along with12% Interest. iv) In Alternative Issue a writ of Mandamus or other appropriate writ order or direction, by directing the respondents to pay the equal pay and perks to the Petitioner from the initial date of his appointment Or after completion of ten years of daily wage service as paid to regular employees of the Respondent government department in terms of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court of India with all consequential benefits. v) Cost of the writ petition may be awarded in favour of the Petitioner in terms of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in SLP (Civil) Diary No. 30326/2023 title The Special Land Acquisition Officer Versus Vithal Rao as well as in SLP (Civil) No.3398/2024 titled State of Rajasthan & Ors Versus Gopal Bijawat, for dragging the petitioner into the unnecessary litigation contrary to the litigation policy framed by the respondents department.” 2 Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and having perused the pleadings as well as documents appended therewith, this Court is of the considered view that no reliefs, as are being prayed for, i.e. quashing of Annexures P-9, P-13 and P-15 can be granted as the said reliefs are hit by delays and latches. 3. Record demonstrates that the petitioner had earlier approached this Court by way of CWP(T) No.12233 of 2008, titled Sanjeev Kumar Gupta Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others, which writ petition was disposed of by this Court in terms of 3 2026:HHC:28362 Annexure P-8, dated 26.02.2011, by issuance of directions to the Authorities to decide the case of the petitioner for regularization in terms of contents of the said order. Pleadings further demonstrate that in compliance to said order, the Complete Authority rejected the representation of the petitioner vide Annexure P-9, on 18.10.2011. Said order of rejection was not assailed by the petitioner within reasonable time. In fact, the same was not assailed till the filing of this petition, which has been filed in the year 2024. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the order passed by learned Single Judge was assailed by the State by way of LPA No.612 of 2011, which was decided on 10.07.2017 and therefore, in light of said development there was no occasion for the petitioner to assail the order dated 18.10.2011. This Court does not agrees with the contention of learned Counsel. 4. A perusal of Annexure P-10, which is the order passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench in LPA No.612 of 2011, titled State of Himachal Pradesh Versus Sanjeev Kumar Gupta demonstrates that the said Letters Patent Appeal was disposed of by the Hon’ble Division Bench by passing the following order:- “We clarify that the similarity between the case of the present respondent, Sanjeev Kumar Gupta and that of Ram Krishan and Yog Raj, as observed by learned Single Judge, is only to the extent that though all were engaged in the Forest Department and later sent to Kandi Project. The directions issued are only for the consideration of the petitioner’s case, if otherwise, writ petitioner is similarly 4 2026:HHC:28362 situated with other named persons. Of course, similarity is not to be on the basis of place of posting alone, but other factors including date of joining, tenure of service, pay scale and nature of duty etc. 2. It is, in this backdrop, we dispose of the present appeal leaving it upon for the appellant-State to consider the case of the writ petitioner, if not already considered. Needless to add that since this Court had not granted any interim relief, benefits if any so awarded in favour of the petitioner, shall not be withdrawn. Pending application(s), if any, are also disposed of.” 5. Thus, what the Hon’ble Division Bench ordered was that the appellant/State was called upon to consider the case of the writ petitioner in light of contents of the said order, but if not already considered. In light of the fact that the Authority had already passed an order in compliance to the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge on 18.10.2011, obviously, now no order was required to be passed by the Competent Authority. Unfortunately, it appears that this fact was not brought to the notice of Hon’ble Division Bench either by the State or by the present petitioner. 6. Be that as it may, Annexures P-13 and P-15 are not fresh orders passed by the Competent Authority, but are orders communicated to the petitioner that his case already stood rejected on 18.10.2011. This being an undisputed position, the petitioner is not entitled to seek reliefs in this regard, as the said reliefs are hit by delays and latches. 7. Faced with this situation, learned Counsel for the 5 2026:HHC:28362 petitioner submitted that the State be directed to consider the case of the petitioner for conferment of work charge status in light of law recently declared by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No.1595 of 2025, titled the State of Himachal Pradesh and others vs. Surajmani and another, decided on 06.02.2025. He submitted that the petitioner shall be satisfied with the same. 8. In light of the prayer so made by the petitioner, this petition is disposed of by rejecting the claim of the petitioner qua relief No.1 being hit by delay and latches, but with liberty to him that he may file a fresh representation to the Competent Authority within a period of three weeks from today qua conferment of work charge status, in light of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Surajmani’s case (supra) and in the event of any such representation being preferred within three weeks, the Competent Authority to take a call thereupon in the backdrop of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Surajmani’s case within six weeks as from the date of receipt of the representation. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge July 13, 2026 (Rishi)