2026:HHC:5020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWPOA No. 724 of 2019 Decided on : 28.02.2026 ____________________________________________________________ Ashok Kumar ...Petitioner Versus State of HP and another ...Respondents ____________________________________________________________ Coram Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the petitioner: Mr. Karan Singh Parmar, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Sumit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General. Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge (Oral) By way of present petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following substantive relief:- “i)That the impugned Order dated 18.11.2010, Annexure P-2 may be quashed to the extent of regularizing the service of the Petitioner w.e.f. 31.10.2010, with further direction to the Respondent Department to regularize the services of the Petitioner w.e.f. 12.04.2002, with all consequential benefits.” 2. Shorn of unnecessary details, brief facts as pleaded in the writ petition are that the writ petitioner joined his services as Junior Draughtsman (Civil) on daily wage basis vide muster roll No. 541 in the month of April, 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2026:HHC:5020 1994. He continued serving with the respondents up to 31.08.1997. However, his services were orally terminated w.e.f. 01.09.1997. 3. The petitioner being aggrieved by the oral termination of his services had raised the dispute and the State Government had made a reference to the Presiding Judge, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Shimla (for short “Labour Court”). The Labour Court in Reference No. 177 of 2003, titled, Ashok Kumar vs. The Block Development Officer, had decided the same on 27.10.2008 (Annexure P-1). The operative part of the order reads as under:- “As a sequel to my above discussion and findings on issue No. 1 to 4 above, the claim of the petitioner succeeds and is hereby allowed and as such the petitioner is ordered to be reinstated forthwith along-with seniority and continuity in service from the date of reference. However, the petitioner is not entitled to back wages as he has not placed any material on record to substantiate that he was not gainfully employed after his retrenchment and as such the reference is ordered to be answered accordingly. Let a copy of this award be sent to the appropriate government for publication in the official gazette. File, after completion, be consigned to records.” 4. In sequel to the said directions given by the Labour Court, the respondents had passed an office order on 18.11.2010, whereby the services of the petitioner were regularized as Clerk along-with other persons and the name 3 2026:HHC:5020 of the petitioner figures at Serial No. 1. 5. As per the pleadings in the petition, the petitioner after regularization of his services, is performing the duties as Clerk with the respondent-department. After joining on the post as Clerk, the petitioner requested the Competent Authority to regularize his services as Supervisor w.e.f. 12.04.2002 i.e. after completion of 08 years of service, as per the policy of the Government readwith the judgment passed by the Labour Court. The action on the part of the respondents in not regularizing his services as Supervisor w.e.f. 12.04.2002, when the petitioner had completed 08 years of service, is wrong, illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner also pleaded that the action of the respondents is against the law laid down by this Court in the case of Rakesh Kumar. 6. The respondents filed reply to the writ petition and have submitted that the petition is bad on account of non-joinder of necessary party as the petitioner has not impleaded Development Block, Theog, which is a necessary party. Earlier the petitioner had filed the Original Application before the erstwhile Himachal Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal, which was dismissed on account of jurisdiction. 4 2026:HHC:5020 Further as per the decision passed in the reference petition, the petitioner was ordered to be reinstated forthwith along- with seniority and continuity in service from the date of reference and as such the petitioner is not entitled to back wages as he has not placed any material on record to substantiate that he was not gainfully employed. As per the decision of the Labour Court, the petitioner had joined his duties on 10.11.2008. 7. The petitioner had approached the Court after a lapse of almost 4 years and as such the petition is not tenable on delay and latches. 8. I have heard Mr. Karan Singh Parmar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Sumit Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondents and have also gone through the file carefully. 9. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has been regularized after the directions issued by the Labour Court vide award dated 27.10.2008. The Labour Court while disposing of the reference had given the directions that the petitioner is ordered to be reinstated forthwith along-with seniority and continuity in service from the date of reference. Once the petitioner has been directed to be 5 2026:HHC:5020 reinstated forthwith along-with seniority and continuity in service from the date of reference, the petitioner cannot claim his regularization from the anterior date. 10. Not only this, the petitioner after regularization of his service vide Annexure P-2 dated 18.11.2010 had filed the writ petition after a lapse of 4 years and there is no whisper in the entire petition that why did the petitioner not come to the Court immediately after his regularization. 11. No doubt the limitation is not prescribed for entertaining the writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, but at the same time, the aggrieved party has to approach the Court within a reasonable time. Since in the present case, the writ petitioner has come to this Court after 04 years, coupled with the fact that the mandate contained in the order passed by the Labour Court has been complied with and thereafter the services of the petitioner have been regularized, though on the post of Clerk, the petitioner cannot further agitate the matter that his lis is covered by the decision rendered in Rakesh Kumar’s case. 12. The petitioner himself has pleaded in the petition that the respondents have not granted him benefit as per 6 2026:HHC:5020 the decision passed by the Labour Court. However, a careful perusal of the order passed by the Labour Court draws only one conclusion that the services of the petitioner were to be reinstated along-with seniority and continuity in service from the date of reference. Thus, the petition claiming relief from anterior date of making reference is not tenable in law and further barred by delay and latches. 13. Consequently, the present petition being devoid of merit is dismissed. However, no orders as to cost. Pending, applications if any shall also stand disposed of accordingly. 28 th February, 2026 ( Jiya Lal Bhardwaj ) (Anurag) Judge