2026:HHC:6434 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No. 14973 of 2025 Decided on : 10.03.2026 Sh. Desh Raj …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 : M/s Chander Narayan Singh, Anshul Gandhi and Ramesh Kumar, Advocates. For the respondents : Mr. Rajpal Thakur, Additional Advocate General, for respondents No.1 to 3. Mr. Susheel Gautam, Advocate, for respondents No.4 & 5. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs:- “i) Issue a writ of Mandamus or other appropriate writ order or direction directing the Respondents to Regularize the contractual services of the Petitioner on 1Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2026:HHC:6434 the post of Data Entry Operator in the respondents department (i.e. Respondent No.1 to 3) after completion of Six Years of contractual service i.e. w.e.f. 01.01.2015 in terms of the regularization policy framed by the respondent department (Annexure P-5Colly) with all consequential benefits. ii) Issue a writ of Mandamus or other appropriate writ order or direction directing the respondents to re-fix the pay of the Petitioner and pay the entire consequential benefits in favour of the Petitioner with in time bound manner along with 12% Interest. iii) Issue a writ of Mandamus or other appropriate writ order or direction, by directing the respondents to pay equal pay and perks to Petitioner from the initial date of his appointment to the post of Data Entry Operator on contract basis Or after completion of Two years of contractual service as paid to regular employees of the government department in terms of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court of India with all consequential benefits.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that earlier also the petitioner had approached this Court and on the directions passed by this Court in the earlier writ petition i.e. 3 2026:HHC:6434 CWP No. 3963 of 2024, titled Desh Raj Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors., the competent Authority disposed of the representation of the petitioner in terms of order dated 03.10.2024, Annexure P-19, perusal whereof demonstrates that the Authority admitted that the petitioner was similarly situated as Sant Ram, judgment passed in whose case was being relied upon by the petitioner to claim the relief, but it was observed by the Authority that as the matter was pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India by way of a Special Leave Petition, no further action can be taken in the petition. Learned counsel submitted that now the Special Leave Petition has been dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Review Petition preferred thereafter by the State has also been dismissed. By referring to Para No.35 of the reply filed by the respondents, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the averments made in this Para also demonstrate that the case of the petitioner being covered by the judgment in Sant Ram’s case, is not much in dispute. Accordingly, he submitted that this petition be disposed of by directing the respondents to confer same benefits upon the petitioner as have been granted 4 2026:HHC:6434 to Sant Ram by the Court. 3. Though the contentions raised by learned counsel for the petitioner could not be rebutted by learned Additional Advocate General and learned counsel for respondents No.4 & 5, but learned Additional Advocate General by referring to the reply filed by the State submitted that the case of the petitioner is fundamentally different from that of Sant Ram and, therefore, his representation has been rightly rejected. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Advocate General and learned counsel for respondents No.4 & 5 and have also carefully gone through the pleadings as well as documents appended therewith. 5. The petitioner herein is seeking a mandamus to the respondents for regularization of his contractual service on the post of Data Entry Operator upon completion of six years, in terms of the averments made in the writ petition. 6. It is a matter of record that earlier also, the petitioner had approached this Court and the petition was disposed of with the direction that let the representation of the petitioner be decided by the Authority concerned. It is further a 5 2026:HHC:6434 matter of record that in the course of deciding the said representation of the petitioner, which was decided vide Annexure P-19, dated 03.10.2024, the following was observed by the Authority:- “The petitioner in his representation has also given reference to the judgment passed by dated 7th Oct., 2023 in LPA No. 2023, titled as State of Himachal Pradesh & Others Vs. Sh. Sant Ram & Another. Sh. Sant Ram is one of project staff (Daily Wager) whose services are regulated by the H.P. Natural Resource Management Society (HPNRMS). In the case of Sh. Sant Ram vide CWPOA No. 3562/2019 the Hon'ble High court of H.P on dated 06.09.2022 passed the orders and directed the respondents to grant the work charge status to petitioners on completion of eight years of daily wage services commencing from 01.01.1997 and further to regularize their services with all consequential benefits at par with similar situated persons in other departments of the State Government. This order has already been assailed by State Government before the Hon'ble Apex Court by filing Special Leave Petition (SLP) vide Diary No. 10840 dated 06.03.2024. And, on dated 26.04.2024 the Hon'ble Apex Court 6 2026:HHC:6434 has passed interim order with directions to maintain status quo in case of Sh. Sant Ram. Additionally, in a similarly situated case CMP (M) No. 232 of 2024 titled as State of H.P. and Others Vs. Gainda Swaroop the Hon'ble High Court of H.P. has passed the following Orders: "The learned Writ Court while allowing the writ petition filed by the respondent herein has primarily allowed the same on the basis of the judgment passed by the learned Division Bench of this Court in LPA No. 153/2023 in case titled State of Himachal Pradesh and others versus Sant Ram and others, decided on 07.10.2023. This judgment, in turn, has now been assailed by the State before the Hon'ble Supreme Court wherein orders of status quo have been passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide its order dated 26.04.2024. In this view of the matter, we deem it appropriate to adjourn the matter sine die reserving liberty to the parties to revive the same as and when the occasion so arises. Ordered accordingly". Since the case of petitioner Sh. Desh Raj Singh is not different from that of Sh. Sant Ram, so no further action regarding averments made in the petition and 7 2026:HHC:6434 representation can be taken at this stage unless the matter pending in the form of SLP in the case of Shri Sant Ram is decided by the Hon'ble Apex Court. This representation is disposed of, accordingly.” 7. Thus, it is evident from the decision of the competent Authority that it stood admitted by the Department that the case of the petitioner was not different from that of Sant Ram. That being the case, now the respondent-Department cannot be allowed to take the plea that the case of the petitioner is fundamentally different from that of Sant Ram, as is the stand taken in the reply, which is hereby rejected. 8. Therefore, in light of the fact that in terms of the earlier order dated 3.10.2024, passed by the competent Authority, the action in the case of the petitioner was deferred on account of the pendency of the matter before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sant Ram’s case (supra) and now as that issue has attained finality, this petition is allowed and respondents are directed to confer benefits upon the petitioner by treating the directions passed in Sant Ram’s case as having been passed in the case of the petitioner also. The contractual services of the petitioner shall be regularized from due date, 8 2026:HHC:6434 notional and actual benefits shall accrue, three years preceding the date of filing of the first writ petition by the petitioner. Let needful be done, within a period of three months from today. 9. The petition is disposed of in above terms. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge March 10, 2026 (Shivank Thakur)