2026:HHC:5464 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWPOA No.752 of 2019 Reserved on : 24.02.2026 Decided on: 03 rd March, 2026 ____________________________________________________________________ Deyee Ram Chauhan ...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others ...Respondents Coram Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the petitioner: Ms. Sneh Bhimta, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Sumit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, for the respondents-State. Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge By way of present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed that the respondents be directed to regularize his services as Senior Draughtsman (Arch.) w.e.f. 01.01.2003 and further held him entitled to all the consequential benefits, including seniority and pay fixation in the cadre of Senior Draughtsman (Arch.). 2. The petitioner has averred in the petition that he has done his Diploma Course in Architectural Assistantship 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 from the Government Polytechnic College, Sundernagar (H.P.), and as per the Recruitment and Promotion Rules notified by the Himachal Pradesh Public Works Department Senior Draughtsman (Class-II, Non-Gazetted) Recruitment and Promotion Rules, he was eligible for appointment as a Senior Draughtsman (Arch.) with the respondents. He was offered appointment as a Junior Engineer on daily wage basis in the Office of the Block Development Officer, Chopal, in the year 1992. However, vide office order dated 13.02.2007 (Annexure P-4), the petitioner was offered a purely temporary post of Junior Draughtsman (Arch.) in the pay scale of Rs.4020-6200 from the prospective effect i.e. from the date of issue of order and actual joining. 3. Since the petitioner was due for regularization after completion of 10 years’ of his service, he made a representation to respondent No.1 praying therein to regularize his services on completion of 10 years’ of service. However, when no decision was taken by respondent No.1, 3 he approached this Hon’ble Court seeking regularization after completion of 10 years’ of service. 4. The petition preferred by the petitioner was registered as CWP(T) No.1038 of 2008, titled Deyee Ram Chauhan vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others. This petition was disposed of on 15.03.2010, directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for work charge as Junior Draughtsman immediately after completion of 10 years’ of service, subject to availability of sanctioned posts from the due date. 5. In sequel to the said directions issued by this Court, respondent No.1 conveyed the decision dated 10.09.2010 to regularize services of the petitioner after completion of 10 years’ and in pursuance of said directions issued by respondent No.1, respondent No.2 passed an office order on 25.09.2010 (Annexure P-6) to regularize the services of the petitioner on the post of Junior Draughtsman (Arch.) from a retrospective date, i.e. with effect from 01.01.2003 4 instead of a prospective date, i.e. actual joining of the post. 6. The petitioner also averred that some of the Senior Draughtsman (Arch.), who were regularized as Junior Draughtsman (Arch.) had filed the Original Applications, which were allowed by the erstwhile Himachal Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal directing the respondents to regularize their services as Senior Draughtsman (Arch.) vide order dated 27.02.2002. However, the State Government had assailed the said orders by preferring the writ petitions, which were registered as CWP No.1578 of 2002, titled, State of H.P. & others versus Smt. Sudesh Sood and others and CWP No.1612 of 2002, titled, State of H.P. and others Versus Simmi Butail and another. These petitions were dismissed by this Court on 23.04.2010. 7. The petitioner, after aforementioned decisions, made a request to respondent No.3 on 28.02.2011 (Annexure P-9) to regularize/promote him as Senior Draughtsman(Arch.), and the said request made by the 5 petitioner was virtually turned down on 26.03.2010 (Annexure P-10), stating that the promotion to the post of Senior Draughtsman would be considered as soon as the R&P Rules of Senior Draughtsman are amended and the process of merger of Junior Draughtsman was completed. 8. It has been pleaded in the petition that since the common judgment passed by this Court in Sudesh Sood’s and Simmi Butail’s case (supra) has attained finality and has been implemented by the respondents-Department, the petitioner may also be given the same treatment and his services be regularized as Senior Draughtsman (Arch.), since the said relief has been granted to similar situated persons. 9. The respondents filed reply to the writ petition and submitted that after the directions issued by this Court the services of the petitioner were regularized on completion of 10 years’ w.e.f. 01.01.2003 instead of prospective date i.e. actually joining the post. Further, the petitioner had no experience of Architectural work prior to his joining in the 6 Architectural Wing, i.e. w.e.f. 14.02.2007, as the nature of the job, i.e. daily wages in Rural Development and regularization in the Architectural Wing, is totally different. 10. So far as the aforementioned persons are concerned, they were initially appointed as Senior Draughtsman (Arch.) on daily wage basis in the Architectural Wing, but due to a paucity of funds, they were demoted to the post of Junior Draughtsman (Arch.) on daily wage basis, without any break. Since they were not having 10 years’ service as Senior Draughtsman (Arch.), their services were regularized as Junior Draughtsman (Arch.). Their services have been regularized as Senior Draughtsman (Arch.), taking into account the order passed in the petition. It has further been submitted that the job of Junior Draughtsman is drafting the drawings based on sketches/designs prepared by the higher officers manually/on computer under their guidance, whereas Senior Draughtsman deals with the jobs assigned to them independently under the supervision of 7 Architects/Senior Architects. 11. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that since the similarly situated persons have been regularized as Senior Draughtsman (Arch.), the same relief may be extended to the petitioner. The submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is attractive, but if the earlier order passed by this Court is perused, this Court had categorically given directions to confer the work charge status upon the petitioner as Junior Draughtsman immediately after the completion of 10 years’ of service, subject to availability of sanctioned posts. The relevant paragraph of the judgment is reproduced as hereunder:- “Accordingly, the petition is allowed. Respondents are directed to consider the case of petitioner for work charge as Junior Draughtsman immediately after the completion of 10 years’ of service subject to availability of sanctioned posts from the due date within a period of ten weeks from today. No costs.” 8 13. A perusal of the directions clearly reveals that the petitioner was ordered to be conferred the work charge status as Junior Draughtsman immediately after completion of 10 years’ service. The petitioner at that point of time never agitated the matter that he was working on the post of Senior Draughtsman (Arch.). Once the petitioner did not agitate the matter further and the direction was given to the respondents to confer the work charge status upon the petitioner as Junior Draughtsman, it cannot be presumed that the petitioner was working on the post of Senior Draughtsman. If it was so, the petitioner in the earlier round of litigation could have claimed conferment of work charge status upon him as Senior Draughtsman (Arch.). 14. The petitioner, having not prayed for the relief in the earlier round of litigation, has given up his claim, and once the said claim was not raised or was given up, at this stage, the petitioner cannot claim parity on the basis of the decisions passed in aforementioned cases of Sudesh Sood’s 9 and Simmi Butail’s case (supra). 15. A perusal of the decision dated 27.02.2002 passed in O.A. No.308/96 reveals that the said persons were agitating their claims before the appropriate Forum from the very beginning of the year 1996. The decision passed by the erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal on 27.02.2002, was challenged before this Court by the State and the Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court had dismissed the writ petition on 23.04.2010. Once the said employees were agitating their grievance from the year 1996 and have succeeded in the litigation, the petitioner cannot claim parity, especially when in the earlier round of litigation, this Court had given categorical directions to confer the work charge status upon the petitioner as Junior Draughtsman immediately after completion of 10 years’ of service, subject to availability of sanctioned posts. In case the petitioner was not working on the post of Junior Draughtsman, he could have further challenged the order to that extent, and once 10 the Coordinate Bench of this Court had already given directions to confer the work charge status as Junior Draughtsman, and the said order having been implemented by the respondents, whereby the petitioner has been regularized on the post of Junior Draughtsman w.e.f. 01.01.2003, the relief claimed on the basis of parity is not maintainable. 16. No doubt, in the order dated 15.03.2010, this Court had noticed that the petitioner was appointed as a Junior Engineer on daily wage basis in the year 1992, but the petitioner never claimed that his services may be regularized on the said post. This Court had also returned findings that the petitioner had accepted the regularization as Junior Draughtsman instead of Junior Engineer, and once the petitioner had given up his claim for the post of Junior Engineer or Senior Draughtsman and accepted the regularization as Junior Draughtsman, this Court is of the considered view that the relief claimed by the petitioner 11 cannot be granted to him. 17. In view of the discussions made hereinabove, I do not find any merit in the writ petition, and the same is accordingly dismissed. However, no order as to costs. 18. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. 03 rd March, 2026 ( Jiya Lal Bhardwaj ) (ankit) Judge