2026:HHC:6189 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 1524 of 2020 Decided on: 06.03.2026 ____________________________________________________________ Rajinder Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of HP and another ...Respondents _____________________________________________________________ Coram Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the petitioner: Mr. Digvijay Singh, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Amandeep Sharma, Additional Advocate General. Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge (Oral) By way of present petition, the petitioner has laid challenge to order dated 03.05.2017 (Annexure P-10), issued by respondent No.2, whereby his claim to regularize his services on the analogy of similarly situated persons like Pawan Kumar, Workshop Instructor and many others, has been rejected. 2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the key facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed vide letter dated 29.07.2009, as Workshop Instructor (Electrical) on practical basis under stop-gap arrangement with the respondents, 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2026:HHC:6189 after adopting due selection process. The petitioner was allowed to work till February, 2017 at different places in the State against regular vacant post. In March, 2017, the petitioner was appointed on contract basis in terms of the notification dated 03.10.2015 (Annexure P-2). His claim is that one Sh. Pawan Kumar had submitted a representation to the Principal, Government Polytechnic College, Sundernagar in the year 1998, seeking appointment as Motor Winding Teacher and he was engaged on need basis on 17.01.1996 without advertising the post. This person had approached this Court by way of writ petition bearing CWP No. 3258 of 2011 seeking regularization and this Court had directed vide order dated 08.10.2012 to consider his case. Similarly, one Smt. Sarita Kumari was engaged by the respondents as Instructor (Embroidery and Needle Work) on contract basis on 10.01.2006 (Annexure P-6) till 31.07.2006, who was then engaged on Students Welfare Fund in the year 2007. However, her services were regularized vide office order dated 30.10.2013, by counting her service from the initial date of appointment as Instructor i.e. from 10.01.2006. 3. It has been averred that the petitioner had 3 2026:HHC:6189 requested the authorities to treat him equal to that of the others including the aforementioned persons, but of no avail. Thereafter, the petitioner had approached the erstwhile Himachal Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred as the Tribunal) by filing T.A. No. 891 of 2015. The said TA was ordered to be disposed of directing respondent No. 2 to consider the case of the petitioner. However, the claim of the petitioner was rejected vide office order dated 30.08.2016 (Annexure P-9). 4. The petitioner had laid challenge to the said order while preferring Original Application No. 756 of 2017 before the Tribunal and the Tribunal vide order dated 27.03.2017 had directed respondent No. 2 to consider the representation of the petitioner, however, the same was again rejected vide order dated 03.05.2017 (Annexure P- 10). 5. The petitioner has laid challenge to the office order dated 03.05.2017, on the ground that the reasons assigned by respondent No. 2, are wrong inasmuch as he has failed to appreciate that Sh. Pawan Kumar was engaged under Community Development Scheme (hereinafter referred as CDS) on need basis, who continued to work 4 2026:HHC:6189 against vacancy in absence of a permanent appointee. Since the petitioner is similarly situated and was engaged in the year 2009 on contract basis, and continued against vacancy of regular post till 2017, he was entitled for regularization on the analogy of similarly situated person like Sh. Pawan Kumar. 6. The respondents-State filed reply to the petition and pleaded that the petition is not maintainable as the petitioner has not come to the Court with clean hands and suppressed the material facts. The petition is barred by delay and laches. The speaking order dated 03.05.2017 was passed by respondent No.2 in compliance with the directions contained in the judgment dated 27.03.2017 passed by the Tribunal. The petitioner has no cause of action as on today i.e. after a lapse of more than 3 years from the date of issue of office order dated 03.05.2017. The respondents have placed on record office order dated 01.03.2017 (Annexure R/1), whereby the services of the petitioner, who was working on hourly basis/consolidate basis Class-III, as Workshop Instructor, have been taken over on contract basis and thereafter petitioner was regularized on 06.03.2020 (Annexure R/3). 5 2026:HHC:6189 7. I have heard Mr. Digvijay Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Amandeep Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondents-State. 8. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was appointed as Workshop Instructor after the aforesaid persons namely Sh. Pawan Kumar and Smt. Sarita Kumari. The petitioner cannot claim parity at par with the aforesaid persons as they were appointed earlier to him. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that once the respondents had issued the Notification dated 03.10.2015 (Annexure P-2), the service of the petitioner ought to have been taken over on contract basis immediately. So far this contention is concerned, it cannot be accepted for the reason that the authorities had to take steps to verify the facts after collecting the data and furthermore, the petitioner was raking up the issue before the competent Court of law and his claim for seeking parity was rejected by respondent No. 2 lastly on 03.05.2017 (Annexure P-10) and he did not approach the Court immediately thereafter. 10. The services of the petitioner as mentioned above were brought on contract basis to the post of 6 2026:HHC:6189 Workshop Instructor as per officer order dated 01.03.2017 (Annexure R/1) and in sequel to the said order, he joined against the said post on 02.03.2017 as evident from the order dated 03.05.2017. If the petitioner was aggrieved by the rejection of his representation on 03.05.2017, he should have approached this Court with some reasonable time, at least within a year. No doubt, there is no period of limitation prescribed to exercise the discretionary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, however, at the same time, once the petitioner was raking up his issue before the competent Court of law/Tribunal and his claim was rejected after bringing his services on contract basis on 03.05.2017, he should have approached this Court within reasonable time i.e. at least within one year from the date of rejection of his claim. Since the petitioner was not vigilant about his rights, this Court cannot come to his aid to grant the relief, more particularly, when neither there is parity nor any wrong has been committed by the respondents, while rejecting the claim of the petitioner. After completion of 03 years’ service on contract basis, the services of the petitioner have been regularized vide office order dated 06.05.2020 (Annexure R/3), and thus this Court is not 7 2026:HHC:6189 inclined to grant any relief to the petitioner, especially, when firstly; he did not approach the Court well within time after rejection of his claim, secondly; there is no parity as claimed by him with Sh. Pawan Kumar and Smt. Sarita Kumari, who admittedly have been appointed prior to him. 11. Consequently, I do not find any merit in the present writ petition and the same is dismissed, however no order as to costs. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. 06 th March , 2026 ( Jiya Lal Bhardwaj ) (Anurag) Judge