2026:HHC:11798 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No. 167 of 2023 Decided on : 16.04.2026 Padma Dolkar …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 : Mr. P.M. Negi, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, Additional Advocate General. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs:- “a. That a direction may kindly be issued to the respondents to withdraw petitioner’s termination and immediately reengage the petitioner and regularise her services and she be paid back wages and the remuneration of a regular employee as done in the case of her juniors. 1Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2026:HHC:11798 b. Issue a writ of certiorari to call for the record pertaining to the case at hand.” 2. A perusal of the petition demonstrates that in terms of the averments made therein, the petitioner was appointed as Beldar in the month of July, 2008 and his services were terminated in the year 2016. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of this writ petition in the year 2023. 3. On a query put to the learned counsel for the petitioner as to how does the petitioner justify the delay and laches in filing the petition, learned counsel submits that the petitioner was approaching the Authorities and they were assuring her that as she had already completed eight years of service, when she voluntarily left the job in the year 2016, as per the stand of the respondents, she would be regularized as and when her turn comes up. 4. This Court is of the considered view that as per the stand taken by the petitioner, her services stood terminated in the month of June, 2016. Accordingly, she should have approached the Court or any other appropriate Fora, within 3 2026:HHC:11798 some reasonable time. The contention of the petitioner that she were approaching the Authorities and they were assuring her that her case for regularization is being considered by the Authorities, has not been substantiated by any material on record. 5. Therefore, as the delay of 7 years in approaching the Court after the alleged termination of the services of the petitioner, could not be justified by the petitioner, this Court is of the considered view that the present petition is hit by delays and laches and the same is dismissed on said count. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge April 16, 2026 (Shivank Thakur)