2026:HHC:10210 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA LPA No. 115 of 2026 Decided on: 01 st April , 2026 ____________________________________________________________ Anil Kumar ....Appellant Versus The State of HP & others ...Respondents _____________________________________________________________ Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the petitioner: Mr. Y.K. Thakur, Mr. Bhanu Verma and Mr. Robin Bhardwaj, Advocates. Ms. Priyanka Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents No.1, 2, 4 & 5. Mr. Balram Sharma, Deputy Solicitor General of India with Mr. Rajeev Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.3-Union of India. G.S. Sandhawalia , Chief Justice (Oral) The present Letters Patent Appeal is preferred by the writ petitioner, who was successful in CWP No. 6603 of 2024, titled, Anil Kumar vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors., decided on 21.11.2025. The learned Single Judge while allowing the writ petition and granting the benefit, directed that the service rendered by the 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2026:HHC:10210 petitioner prior to regularization would be counted for the purpose of continuity of service, seniority as well as retiral benefits. The exception which was there and has now been objected is that he was not held entitled to actual benefits. The relevant para of the judgment reads as under:- “10. Consequently, in view of discussions made hereinabove as well as law taken into consideration, this Court finds merit in the present petition and accordingly, the same is allowed. Respondents are directed to take into consideration the services rendered by the petitioner prior to his regularization for the purpose of continuity of service, meaning thereby, petitioner shall be deemed to be in regular service from the date of his initial appointment, but he shall not be entitled to actual benefits for the aforesaid period, till his regularization, rather service for the purpose of seniority as well as retiral benefits. Since petitioner has been fighting for his rightful claim for quite long, this Court hopes and trusts that needful shall be done expeditiously, preferably within two months from today. Pending application, if any, stand disposed of.” 2. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently submits that the learned Single Judge had relied upon a judgment passed in CWPOA No. 513 of 2019, titled, Babu Ram & Ors. vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors., decided on 25.08.2022, whereby similarly situated persons had been granted the benefit of regularization from the dates of their initial appointments, with all consequential benefits including pension rights, and monitory benefits were restricted to be notional from the date of their initial appointment. It is submitted that 3 a Letters Patent Appeal was also dismissed as time barred, bearing CMP(M) No. 1572 of 2023, titled, State of HP and others vs. Babu Ram & Ors., decided on 29.11.2023 and it is thus submitted that the relief should have been in the same terms. 3. We have gone through the judgment of the learned Single Judge. Apparently the learned Single Judge has specifically denied the relief of the actual benefits, keeping in mind the fact that the petitioner was appointed on a contract basis vide office order dated 16.09.2006 (Annexure P-1) and his services were regularized on 24.08.2013. Apparently no attempt was made by the appellant to approach this Court at that point of time and he remained satisfied with his regularization order in the year 2013, only when Babu Ram’s case (supra) was decided on 25.08.2022 and thereafter upheld on 29.11.2023, the present writ petition came to be filed in April, 2024. 4. The learned Single Judge apparently, on the arguments raised by the State on the issue of delay and laches, has referred to the judgment in Chairman/Managing Director, Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Limited and others vs. Ram Gopal, (2021) 13 SCC 225, regarding the fact that the writ petitioner was a fence sitter but granted the benefit while keeping in view the other judgment of the Apex Court in State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Yogendra Shrivastava, (2010) 4 2026:HHC:10210 12 SCC 538, that it was a continuing cause of action and it would affect his pensionary benefits and thus, the plea of delay and laches to that extent were overruled. 5. We are of the considered opinion that in State of Uttar Pradesh and others vs. Arvind Kumar Srivastava and others, (2015) 1 SCC 347, the issue of fence sitters have been specifically examined and it has been held that persons who approached the Court after decision in similarly situated matters by others, are not entitled for the said benefits, whereby it has been specifically held that persons who did not challenge the wrongful action in their cases and acquiesced into the same and woke up after long delay have to be treated as fence sitters and acquiescence would be a valid ground to dismiss their claim. The relevant para reads as under:- “22.2. However, this principle is subject to well-recognised exceptions in the form of laches and delays as well as acquiescence. Those persons who did not challenge the wrongful action in their cases and acquiesced into the same and woke up after long delay only because of the reason that their counterparts who had approached the court earlier in time succeeded in their efforts, then such employees cannot claim that the benefit of the judgment rendered in the case of similarly situated persons be extended to them. They would be treated as fence-sitters and laches and delays, and/or the acquiescence, would be a valid ground to dismiss their claim.” 6. The said view was also considered by a three judge 5 Bench thereafter in Ram Gopal’s case (supra), whereby the writ petition filed by the employee was dismissed, while noticing that there was delay in filing the writ petition and the same could not have been over looked. 7. It is also to be noticed that in Babu Ram’s case (supra), the said persons had approached the Court at the initial stage itself, as they firstly approached before the Tribunal, and the matter was remained pending was finally decided by this Court. 8. Keeping in view the above, we are of the considered opinion that the discretion which has been exercised by the learned Single Judge by specifically holding that the benefit is only to be restricted for the purpose of seniority and pensionary benefits does not suffer from any irregularity and is not liable to be interfered in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 9. Resultantly, we find no merit in the present appeal and same is accordingly dismissed. ( G.S. Sandhawalia ) Chief Justice 01 st April , 2026 ( Jiya Lal Bhardwaj ) (Anurag) Judge