1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA LPA No.130 of 2026 Date of Decision : 12.03.2026 State of Himachal Pradesh and others …… Appellants Versus Satish Kumar …… Respondent Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellants : Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Gobind Korla, Additional Advocate General. For the Respondent : Nemo. Ajay Mohan Goel (oral) CMP(M) No.130 of 2025 Heard learned Advocate General for the applicants. 2. By way of present application, a prayer has been made for condonation of 130 days’ delay in filing the appeal. In view of the averments made in the application, the same is allowed and the delay in filing the appeal is condoned. LPA No.130 of 2026 3. By way of the present appeal, the State has assailed the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Single Judge, in CWP No.3672 of 2024, titled Satish Kumar vs. State of H.P. and others, decided on 04.07.2025, in 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 terms whereof, the petition filed by the respondent, herein, has been allowed in the following terms:- “4. In view of above, this writ petition is disposed of by directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for grant of work-charge status and regularization of his services from due date in accordance law laid down in Sant Ram and Bhupinder Singh Mehta within six weeks. The benefits, if any, flowing to the petitioner be also released within the aforesaid period.” 4. In the light of the fact that directions passed by the Hon’ble Single Judge is only to consider the case for grant of work-charge status and regularization of the service of the petitioner, in accordance with law, laid down by this Court, in CWPOA No.3562 of 2019, titled Sant Ram and Anr. vs. State of H.P. and others, decided on 06.09.2022 and in CWPOA No.2979 of 2020, titled Bhupinder Singh Mehta and Ors. vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors., decided on 18.03.2025, we are of the considered view that the present appeal is misconceived, as all that the Hon’ble Single Judge has done is to issue a mandamus to the respondents to take a call in consonance with the judgments referred therein. 5. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed, so also, the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. ( Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge ( Bipin Chander Negi) March 12, 2026 (KS) Judge