2026:HHC:33641 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.2328 of 2019 Decided on: 07.08.2026 Satish Kumar … 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 petitioners: Mr. Vinod Chauhan, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, Additional Advocate General, for respondents No.1 and 2. Mr. H.S. Rangra, Advocate, for respondent No.3. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this petition, the petitioners have, inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs:- “(i) That the respondent No.3 may kindly be directed to considered the petitioner for the post of Mate with Notional benefits. (ii) That the respondents may kindly be directed to regularize the services of the petitioner as Mate instead of Beldar w.e.f. 01.01.2000 as and when he has completed his 8 years of services with Notional Benefits.” 2. The case of the petitioner is that despite the fact that from his initial engagement the work of a Mate was extracted from him, yet his services were regularized as a Beldar. Accordingly, he has prayed that respondents be directed to regularize his services against the post of a Mate, rather than a Beldar. 3. Learned Counsel appearing for respondent No.3 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2026:HHC:33641 submitted that the filing of this petition is nothing, but an abuse of the process of law. By referring to Annexure R-3/B appended with the reply of respondent No.3, he submitted that the petitioner had initially approached this Court by way of an Original Application, which was subsequently transferred to this Court and re-registered as CWPT No. 16588 of 2008, wherein, he had claimed work-charged status on completion of 10 years of continuous service. Said petition was disposed of on 23.03.2010 by this Court by permitting the petitioner to file a representation and further directing the respondents to decide the same in accordance with law. By referring to Annexure R-3/C, learned counsel submitted that thereafter, the petitioner again filed an Original Application, i.e., O.A.(M)-194 of 2016, before the erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal and in the said case, he made a prayer for regularization of his services and in terms of the averments made in the said Original Application, it was stated that as the petitioner was engaged as a Beldar in the year 1992, his services were liable to be regularized/brought on work-charged establishment in the year 2000 and therefore, his services were wrongly regularized in the year 2007. Accordingly, a prayer was made in the petition for issuance of a direction to the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioner upon completion of 8 years of service or at least confer work-charged status upon him. He submitted that as the petitioner had in the earlier Original Application, claimed regularization/ 3 2026:HHC:33641 conferment of work-charged status as a Beldar, therefore, now he cannot be allowed to maintain this writ petition after his regularization as a Beldar. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, when confronted with this fact, submitted that these facts were not brought to his notice by the petitioner at the time of drafting of petition. 5. Be that as it may, in light of the fact that in the earlier legal proceedings initiated by the petitioner, he had claimed regularization as a Beldar/conferment of work-charged status as a Beldar upon completion of requisite number of years, nothing stopped him from claiming the said relief as a Mate in the said proceedings, because this cause of action was available to him at that stage also, when he had preferred the earlier legal proceedings. However, he did not claim the said relief in the earlier proceedings. 6. The above clearly demonstrates that the present writ petition, besides being hit by the provisions of Order II Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Code, has been filed by concealing material facts from the Court. In fact, a perusal of the petition demonstrates that there is no disclosure of the earlier proceedings which were initiated by the petitioner and have been appended with its reply by respondent No.1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the only reason as to why there is no mention thereof is that those facts were not disclosed to him by the petitioner, otherwise he would have mentioned all these facts in the present writ petition. 4 2026:HHC:33641 7. Be that as it may, in light of the conduct of the petitioner and further the petition being hit by the provisions of Order II Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Code, the same being not maintainable, is dismissed, as no relief as is being claimed by the petitioner can be granted to him in light of earlier petition filed by him and stand taken by him therein. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge August 07, 2026 (Rishi)