2026:HHC:18690 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWPOA No.2900 of 2020 Decided on: 19.05.2026 Dr. Ghanshyam Chauhan ...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others ...Respondents Coram Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the petitioner: Mr. Neel Kamal Sood, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Amir Khan, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Hemant Kumar Verma, Deputy Advocate General. Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge (Oral) The petitioner, by way of present petition, has prayed for quashing order dated 15.05.2017 (Annexure A- 20) passed by respondent No.1, whereby no benefit has been given to him of the services rendered by him, earlier to offering him appointment vide office order dated 11.03.2014 (Annexure A-18). 2. The facts, as emerge from the pleadings, are that the petitioner was initially appointed vide 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2026:HHC:18690 appointment letter dated 11.06.2009 (Annexure A-1) as Ayurvedic Medical Officer in the year 2009, on contract basis through Rogi Kalyan Samiti at Ayurvedic Health Centre Pokhi, Tehsil Karsog, District Mandi, H.P. The petitioner in sequel to the said appointment order had joined his duties on 13.06.2009. However, he kept on remaining absent from duties without any leave. The petitioner was warned about his absence vide letter dated 24.03.2011 (Annexure A-3). It has been averred by the petitioner that he was getting treatment from IGMC Shimla and due to that reason, he could not join his services. The petitioner was issued notice dated 09.09.2011 (Annexure A-12) by the District Ayurvedic Officer Mandi, wherein it was mentioned that as per term and condition of appointment at Serial No.3, his services can be terminated by the department, giving him one month’s notice or one month’s remuneration in lieu thereof. It was also stated that as per the information provided by Sub Divisional Ayurvedic Medical Officer Karsog at Mamail, District Mandi (HP), vide letters dated 10.08.2011 and 27.08.2011, the petitioner has willfully remained absent from his duty on 30.07.2011 to the day 3 2026:HHC:18690 of reporting i.e. 27.08.2011 and was asked to explain in writing regarding his willful absence from duty, but no satisfactory reply was received. After issuing various warnings to the petitioner, no improvement was found and thus a month’s notice was served upon him and after completion of one month’s from the issuance of this notice, his services will be terminated. 3. The petitioner replied to the said notice dated 09.09.2011 on 21.09.2011 (Annexure A-13), however, vide office order dated 24.10.2011 (Annexure A-14), his services were terminated from 10.10.2011. 4. The petitioner feeling aggrieved by the said order had filed CWP No.10041 of 2011, titled, Dr. Ghanshyam Chauhan vs. State of HP & others, before this Court, which came to be disposed of on 23.11.2011, with the direction that the petitioner may file an appropriate representation detailing all his grievances before the second respondent (respondent No.2) within a period of one week. Thereafter, he will look into the matter and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law. After the disposal of the writ petition, respondent No.2 passed the order holding that the contentions raised 4 2026:HHC:18690 by the petitioner in his explanation in response to the notice of termination of services were not taken into consideration and the order of termination of his services is cryptic and without details, which is basically in violation of the natural justice. The order of termination of service passed by respondent No.3 i.e. District Ayurvedic Officer, Mandi cannot stand and the petitioner shall be deemed to be in service in continuity. However, District Ayurvedic Officer, Mandi was directed to proceed to enquire into allegations, on which, the impugned orders are issued and take action on the conclusion of the inquiry. However, the petitioner shall not be paid for the period for which he had not actually worked in the AHC Pokhi, till the conclusion of the inquiry. Before closing the matter, it was mentioned that the petitioner has made serious allegations against the Sub Divisional Ayurvedic Medical Officer Karsog. The issue requires thorough investigation for both the reasons whether the allegations are wrong or correct. The Additional Director was also assigned the inquiry and submit his report within two months from the date of passing the order i.e. 18.01.2012. After the order passed by respondent No.2, 5 2026:HHC:18690 the petitioner was offered the appointment afresh as Ayurvedic Medical Officer, on contract basis on 11.03.2014 (Annexure A-18). Thereafter, as per Notification dated 03.06.2017, his services were regularized on completion of three years in the pay scale of 10,300-34,800 + 5000/- Grade Pay plus non practice allowance, as admissible under the Rules/Instructions issued by the Government from time to time, with immediate effect. Earlier to this, respondent No.1 had passed the order on 15.05.2017, stating therein that no benefit accrued to the petitioner for the period in which he was not in service shall be given to him. It was held that the continuity in service cannot be given to the petitioner for the reasons that the contract of officer had been terminated. The orders of re-employment of the officer were not issued during the year 2012 and the officer has not worked during the intervening period of termination and re-appointment. 5. The petitioner aggrieved by the order dated 15.05.2017 has come before this Court on the grounds that the said order is not sustainable in the eyes of law, as the same has been passed in gross and palpable 6 2026:HHC:18690 violation of law and procedure. The impugned order also suffers from material illegality and irregularity for the reasons that the documents placed on record by the petitioner have not been considered. The order is based on assumptions and presumptions as well as on surmises and conjectures. The petitioner is entitled for continuity in service because of his having explained his absence from duties to the higher authorities, which was duly considered by respondent No.2, while passing order dated 18.01.2012. 6. The respondents filed reply to the petition and averred that the petitioner was appointed by the District Ayurvedic Medical officer under the Rogi Kalyan Samiti in the year 2009. Since the petitioner was not discharging his duties honestly and diligently and willfully remained absent without prior sanction of the leave from his superiors and used to send his leave application subsequent to the leave availed, order passed against him is not liable to be quashed. It has further been averred that the department had again filled up the post of Ayurvedic Medical Officer in the year 2014 and the petitioner had appeared in the interview and he was 7 2026:HHC:18690 considered for appointment as a fresh candidate and was offered the appointment vide letter dated 11.03.2014 and subsequently his services have been regularized w.e.f. 05.06.2017. The petitioner neither reported for duty at the place of his posting nor approached any of the authorities till he was appointed afresh on 11.03.2014. 7. The petitioner filed rejoinder to the reply and controverted the averments made in the reply. Further, the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in LPA No.146 of 2010, titled, State of Himachal Pradesh and others vs. Narain Singh, along with connected petitions, decided on 01.09.2015. 8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record carefully. 9. Mr. Neel Kamal Sood, learned senior counsel duly assisted by Mr. Amir Khan, Advocate, for the petitioner has vehemently argued that since the action on the part of the respondents is not based on any reason, the impugned order not counting the past service deserves to be quashed and set aside. No doubt, as per order dated 18.01.2012 passed by respondent No.2, the 8 2026:HHC:18690 petitioner was held to be in service in continuity, but the petitioner after passing the said order had not joined the services till he was offered the appointment on 11.03.2014. Not only this, the petitioner was offered the appointment as per order dated 11.03.2014 (Annexure A- 18), on contract basis on batch wise basis on the recommendation of the Department Selection Committee and in pursuance of the said appointment order, he had joined his services. The petitioner, at that time did not approach this Court and claimed that he ought to have been appointed in pursuance of the earlier appointment letter. The petitioner was regularized after completion of three years’ service as per Notification dated 03.06.2017 and before that, his claim for counting the past service was rejected vide communication dated 15.05.2017. The petitioner has approached this Court only after passing the regularization order and once the petitioner did not rake up the issue when he was offered the appointment afresh on batch wise basis on 11.03.2014. The plea now taken that his past service should have been counted for the purpose of granting him benefits cannot be accepted. Once the petitioner had not joined even after passing the 9 2026:HHC:18690 order by respondent No.2 on 18.01.2012, he is not entitled to count the previous service and furthermore, the petitioner was offered the appointment on batch wise basis, as per the interview conducted by the respondents. Thus, no illegality can be found with the order dated 15.05.2017, passed by respondent No.1, whereby a decision has been taken not to confer any benefit to count the past service of the petitioner, especially when he did not report for duty after the order dated 18.01.2012, till he was offered the appointment on 11.03.2014. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that once this Court had already directed to regularize the services of the persons in Narain Singh’s case (supra), the petitioner is also entitled to the same relief. However, if the judgment passed by the Division Bench is perused, in that case, the persons who were juniors to the petitioners/respondents in LPAs were regularized earlier and the Court had given the directions to regularize the services of seniors from the dates which their juniors were regularized. Thus, the judgment is not attracted in the facts of the present case. In the present case, the facts 10 2026:HHC:18690 are not similar and I am of the considered view that no illegality can be found with the order passed by respondent No.1, whereby the benefit of earlier service has been denied to the petitioner. 11. Consequently, the present petition being devoid of merits is dismissed. However, there shall be no orders as to cost. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. 19 th May , 2026 ( Jiya Lal Bhardwaj ) (Anurag) Judge