2026:HHC:8071 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CMP(M) No. 149 of 2026 & LPA No. 150 of 2026 Date of decision: 19.03.2026 State of H. P. & Ors. …Appellants Versus Mayank Verma …Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice G. S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Appellants: Mr. Rakesh Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General. G. S. Sandhawalia , Chief Justice (Oral) CMP(M) No. 149 of 2026 For the reasons stated in the application, which is duly supported by the affidavit of the Additional Principal Chief Conservator of Forests-cum-Chief Project Director, the delay of 195 days in filing the appeal is condoned. Application Stands disposed of. LPA No. 150 of 2026 3. The present appeal is directed against the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP No. 3697 of 2024, titled as Mayank Verma vs. State of H.P. & Ors., decided on 28.05.2025, while taking note of para 21 of the reply that the matter was covered by the decision in CWPOA No. 3562 of 2 2026:HHC:8071 2019, titled as Sant Ram & Ors. vs. State of H.P. & Ors., which was decided on 06.09.2022 and was upheld in LPA No. 153 of 2023, titled as State of H.P. & Ors. vs. Sant Ram & Anr., decided on 07.10.2023. 4. It is not disputed that the said LPA was subject matter of Civil Appeal No. 1858 of 2025, titled as State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. vs. Sant Ram and Anr. which was decided alongwith bunch of cases in Civil Appeal No. 1595 of 2025, titled as State of H.P. & Ors. vs. Surajmani, decided on 06.02.2025. 5. In such circumstances, the learned Single Judge has directed that the regularization be done on the post of Data Entry Operator on completion of 6 years of contractual service w.e.f. 06.01.2016 with all consequential benefits, however, actual monetary benefits shall be restricted to 3 years prior to the date of filing of the petition. 6. It is not disputed that the review petitions in Sant Ram, Yudhbir Singh and Maan Singh’s cases i.e. I.A. Nos. 137848/25, 137850/25 and 137383/25 have also been dismissed by the Apex Court on 03.02.2026, and therefore, we are of the considered opinion that benefit of regularization as such has been rightly directed as it was a specific plea of the writ petitioner that he had got an appointment in selection process 3 2026:HHC:8071 on 06.01.2010 (Annexure P-1) with the H.P. Natural Resources Management Society at that time. 7. It is not disputed that he continued as such in the Forest Department and adjusted in the other projects and, therefore, he is in service for the last 16 years. The principle of regularization on account of long service has already been laid down by the Apex Court recently in Jaggo vs. Union of India & Ors. alongwith connected matter, (2024) SCC Online SC 3826 and Dharam Singh vs. Union of India & Ors., 2025 INSC 998. 8. In such circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that no case as such is made out to interfere in the order passed by the learned Single Judge. Resultantly, the present appeal is dismissed, so also pending applications, if any. (G. S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice (Jiya Lal Bhardwaj) 19th March, 2026(sanjeev) Judge