IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP No. 15834 of 2026 along with CWP Nos. 15843, 15992 and 16022 of 2026. Decided on :25 th September , 2026 1. CWP No. 15834 of 2026. Sheela Devi & Ors. ...Petitioners. Versus State of H.P. & Ors. ....Respondents. 2. CWP No. 15843 of 2026. Sham Kumar ...Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. & Ors. ....Respondents. 3. CWP No. 15992 of 2026. Surinder Kumar & Ors. ...Petitioners. Versus State of H.P. & Ors. ....Respondents. 4. CWP No. 16022 of 2026. Vipin Kumar & Anr. ...Petitioners. Versus State of H.P. & Ors. ....Respondents. Coram: Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Davinder Chauhan Jaita, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. L.N. Sharma, Additional Advocate General. 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Petitioners have preferred these writ petitions feeling aggrieved against consideration order passed by respondent No.2 rejecting their cases for regularization of service. Following order was passed 15.09.2026 in the matter at the time of issuing notice to the respondents: “Notice. Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, learned Additional Advocate General and Mr. Manohar Lal Sharma, learned counsel, appear and waive service of notice on behalf of the respective respondents. Vide order dated 01.01.2026 (Annexure P-2), the respondents have rejected the cases of the petitioners, seeking regularization at par with the writ petitioners of CWP Nos.1109 and 1102 of 2011. The rejection is primarily on account of the stand that the petitioners in CWP Nos.1109 and 1102 of 2011 were earlier working under the Health Department with the prior approval of the Government against the regular sanctioned posts on contract basis and later on their services were taken over by the Rogi Kalyan Samiti, whereas, present petitioners seeking the relief on the analogy of the aforesaid petitions, were appointed by the Rogi Kalyan Samiti itself from the initial date of their engagement and had never been engaged or worked under the Health Department against any regular sanctioned posts. Learned counsel for the petitioners refers to Annexure P-8, reply filed by the respondent-State to CWP No.1119 of 2011, wherein, the stand of the State was that the petitioners therein were also appointed as employees of Rogi Kalyan Samiti from the very beginning. It appears that the facts projected in the impugned order are at variance with the facts pleaded by the respondents in CWP No.1119 of 2011. Let learned Additional Advocate General to have instructions in the matter. List on 22.09.2026.” 3 2. Pursuant to the above, respondents had placed on record office instructions. The office instructions have disputed the claim of the petitioners that their cases were similarly situated as that of petitioners in CWP Nos.1109 and 1102 of 201, with whom they were seeking parity. 3. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners have certain other grounds and individual claims distinct from the facts of CWP Nos.1109 and 1102 of 2011, which entitle them to seek regularisation, however, these aspects have not been pleaded in these writ petitions, therefore, petitioners be permitted to withdraw the writ petitions with liberty to file afresh in accordance with law, with appropriate pleadings and supporting documents. Granting such permission, the present writ petitions are disposed of as withdrawn. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge 25th September, 2026. (jai)