( 2026:HHC:4960 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No.2007 of 2020 Decided on: 27th February, 2026 Subhash Chand .......Petitioner versus State of H.P and another ...Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner: Mr. Rahul Singh Jagota and Mr.Rakesh Kumar Sharma, Advocates. 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 reliefs: “i) That the respondents department may kindly be directed to consider the claim of the petitioner for granting him status to the post of Clerk from the date as and when he started discharging duties of Clerk on record w.e.f. 28.06.2009. ii) That the respondents department may be directed to re-designate the petitioner for the post of Clerk along with all consequential benefits along with monetary benefits from 28.06.2009.” 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. ( 2026:HHC:4960 ) 2 2. As per pleadings in the writ petition, the petitioner was initially appointed vide office order dated 20.05.2002 as Peon-cum-Chowkidar in the respondent-Department and posted at I.T.I (Women), Reckong Peo in the pay-scale of Rs.2620/- (consolidated). Thereafter, in the month of July, 2007, he was transferred to I.T.I Bilaspur, H.P. and served there till 2008. Later on, the petitioner was transferred to Jawahar Lal Nehru Government Engineering College, Sundernagar, District Mandi, H.P. After joining at Jawahar Lal Nehru Government Engineering College, Sundernagar, District Mandi, H.P., he was entrusted with the work of Clerk in place of Peon-cum-Chowkidar. 3. The petitioner was though designated as Peon, but he was assigned the work of Class-III employee/diary dispatch/Clerk. The petitioner has placed on record numerous letters/orders w.e.f. 28.06.2009 to 16.11.2019 to buttress his submissions. The petitioner did not place on record his regularization orderson the post of Peon, however, the respondents while filing reply to the writ petition have placed on record office order dated 11.04.2012 (Annexure R-2), whereby the services of the petitioner were regularized ( 2026:HHC:4960 ) 3 as Peon w.e.f. 21.05.2010. The name of the petitioner figures at Serial No.46 in the said office order. 4. It has been averred in the petition that the petitioner was fulfilling all the requisite qualifications as per Recruitment and Promotion Rules for the post of Clerk and further he gained experience while working against the post of Clerk since the year 2009. Further, there is a lot of difference in the pay-scales of both the posts. Despite making various requests to the respondents either to re-designate him to the post of Clerk or give him the pay-scale applicable to the post of Clerk as the posts are lying vacant, nothing was done by the respondents. However, as per recommendations made by the H.P. Staff Selection Commission, Hamirpur, the Deputy Commissioner, Mandi, District Mandi, H.P. has issued an office order dated 20.11.2019 (Annexure P-6), whereby he was offered appointment to the post of Clerk in the pay-scale of Rs.5910-20200+Grade Pay Rs.1900/- in the establishment of the Deputy Commissioner, Mandi, District Mandi, H.P. 5. The respondents filed reply to the petition and averred that the petitioner has not approached this Court with the clean hands and has suppressed the material facts. The services of the petitioner were regularized vide office order ( 2026:HHC:4960 ) 4 dated 21.05.2010 by the respondents, which fact has not been mentioned in the petition. The respondents have also averred that the petitioner has not impleaded the Principal- cum-Director of Jawahar Lal Nehru Engineering College as a necessary party and the present petition is bad of non-joinder of the necessary party and mis-joinder of cause of action and deserves to be dismissed. 6. It has further been averred that the petitioner was regularized vide office order dated 11.04.2012 by the respondents and thereafter he was promoted to the post of Workshop Attendant (Class-IV) vide office order dated 26.09.2017 (Annexure R-2). The petitioner was relieved of his duties on 21.11.2019 due to his selection on the post of Clerk under the Limited Direct Recruitment (LDR) quota, where only Class-IV employees are eligible and joined as Clerk in the office of Deputy Commissioner, Mandi, H.P. 7. The respondents have also averred that the petitioner was entrusted the work of Class-IV only. The copies of the documents attached by the petitioner no-where shows that the work other than the Class-IV post was assigned to him. The duties of Class-IV employees in the main office, Diary/dispatch section and other sections/department ( 2026:HHC:4960 ) 5 of the institute are to carry and deliver dak within and outside the office and none of the orders attached by the petitioner shows that he was assigned the duties of Clerk, whereas the orders clearly depict that the incumbent was asked to do the duties as are assigned to Class-IV employees. 8. The petitioner filed rejoinder to the reply and has controverted the facts and reiterated the stand taken in the petition. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Deputy Advocate General representing the respondents-State and also perused the record carefully. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that though the petitioner was appointed as Peon- cum-Chowkidar, but since his posting w.e.f. 28.06.2019 in the Jawahar Lal Nehru Government Engineering College, Sundernagar, District Mandi, H.P., he had been performing the duties of Clerk. He drew the attention of this Court to various letters/orders annexed with the petition to buttress his submission that once the petitioner has attended the office of the Advocate General in connection with the Court cases and further he was asked to work on the post of Clerk, he is entitled to the pay-scale of the post of Clerk. ( 2026:HHC:4960 ) 6 11. It is admitted fact that the petitioner in the writ petition has not averred that he after completion of his particular number of years was regularized on the post of Peon, as is evident from the office order dated 11.04.2012 (Annexure R/2). Not only this, subsequent thereto, the petitioner vide office order dated 26.09.2017 passed by respondent No.2, was promoted to the post of Workshop Attendant in the pay band of Rs.4900-10680+1650 Grade Pay on regular basis with immediate effectand in this order his name figures at Serial No.71. 12. The petitioner, as per documents placed on record by him has been appointed to the post of Clerk under the 20% Limited Direct Recruitment (LDR) as per office order dated 20.11.2019 issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Mandi, H.P. and he had joined the duties. It is only after his joining with the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Mandi, District Mandi, H.P., he preferred the present writ petition, claiming the relief that since he had discharged the duties on the post of Clerk, his case may be directed to be considered for granting him status to the post of Clerk, from the date when he has discharged the duties. ( 2026:HHC:4960 ) 7 13. Admittedly, the petitioner had not mentioned two material facts while preferring the writ petition, (a) that he was regularized on the post of Peon in the year 2012, which fact came to light only after the reply being filed by the respondents-State, wherein they have placed on record office order dated 11.04.2012, (b) that the petitioner was thereafter promoted to the post of Workshop Attendant on 26.09.2017. 14. It is settled law that a person who comes to the Court with clean hands, is only entitled to the discretionary relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Secondly, if the petitioner was aggrieved by the office order dated 11.04.2012, when his services were regularized as Peon, the cause of action available to him, was to approach the Court at that juncture. The petitioner slept over the matter and even after his promotion to the post of Workshop Attendant, he had not come to the Court with clean hands. The petitioner had waited till his appointment to the post of Clerk under 20% Limited Direct Recruitment (LDR) and after acceptance of his appointment as Clerk that too in different Department, has approached this Court. 15. The appointment of the petitioner in the Office of the Deputy Commissioner, Mandi, District Mandi, H.P. is not ( 2026:HHC:4960 ) 8 in the same Department, where he was earlier serving. The reliefs claimed by the petitioner could have been granted to him only if, firstly; he had come to this Court with clean hands, secondly; immediately after regularization of his services on the post of Peon on 11.04.2012, thirdly; when he was promoted as Workshop Attendant and lastly; before leaving the first department. Since the petitioner has neither approached this Court with clean hands nor has approached this Court before joining the Office of the Deputy Commissioner, Mandi, H.P., is not entitled for any relief. 16. In view of the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any merit in the petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. However, with no orders as to costs. 17. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. ( Jiya Lal Bhardwaj ) February 27, 2026 Judge (naveen)