2026:HHC:16799 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWPOA No.2043 of 2019 Date of Decision: 12.05.2026 Sampti Kumari ...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. Rajesh Kumar Parmar, Advocate For the respondents: Mr. Sumit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge (oral) By way of present petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- “(i) That a writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued to direct the respondents to regularize the service of the petitioner from the date when her similarly situated and even juniors persons in the State have been regularized with all consequential benefits and arrears thereof with seniority and continuity. (ii) That the petitioner is further entitled for seniority and other benefits from May, 1997 of her initial appointment from where the name of the petitioner has been deleted deliberately just to deprive her appointment for obvious reasons and hence, the petitioner prays that salary for 7 months be recovered from the defaulter and also directions may kindly be passed to pay heavy costs for unnecessary delaying her appointment and the period of 7 months may kindly be ordered to be counted for her seniority as per the appointment list. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2026:HHC:16799 (iii) That the entire arrears from the date when the similarly situated and junior persons have been regularized may also kindly be ordered to be paid to the petitioner along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum.” 2. The facts which emerge from the pleadings are that the petitioner had applied for the post of Part Time Water Carrier in Government Primary School, Trangla, Education Block Kuthar, District Solan, H.P. However, when appointment order dated 27.05.1997 was issued, her name did not figure in the said office order, though as per the pleadings, she was at serial No.16 as can be seen from the perusal of Annexure P-6. It has been pleaded that the respondents for some extraneous reasons deleted her name. On enquiry, it was revealed that the name of the petitioner has been deleted deliberately. Thereafter, the petitioner got served the legal notice on the respondents and after receipt of the legal notice, she was offered appointment after 7 months. She joined her duties on 15.12.1997 as Part Time Water Carrier in Government Primary School, Trangla, Education Block Kuthar, District Solan, H.P. The petitioner’s name figures at serial number 5 of the office order dated 09.12.1997 (Annexure P-2). 3. It has been averred in the petition that one Sh. Het Ram, who was at serial No.18 of the office order dated 27.05.1997 was firstly made daily wager and thereafter has 3 2026:HHC:16799 been regularized, but the claim of petitioner was not considered for regularization. Since, the claim of the petitioner for regularisation was not considered, while the persons placed below her in the list of Water Carrier (Annexure P-6) was considered for regularization, the action on the part of the respondents in depriving her of the same benefit is highly illegal and arbitrary. The action on the part of the respondents to delete her name from the initial appointment order dated 27.05.1997 was for extraneous reasons. The petitioner was offered appointment after receipt of the legal notice. The juniors to the petitioners are enjoying the regular status and thus the petitioner is suffering huge loss despite the fact that she had rendered 14 years of service. The action on the part of the respondents is in violation of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India. 4. The respondents filed reply to the petition and averred that the petition is barred by law of limitation as the cause of action had arisen to the petitioner in the year 1997, whereas the present petition has been filed after more than 15 years. As per the information received from the Deputy Director of Elementary Education, Solan, H.P, the petitioner was selected by a duly constituted Selection Committee as 4 2026:HHC:16799 Part Time Water Carrier in Government Primary School, Trangla, Education Block Kuthar and her name was at serial No.16 in the list which was sent by the Deputy Commissioner, Solan, H.P, vide letter dated 09.05.1997 to the Deputy Director, Elementary Education, Solan, H.P. The name of the petitioner was found deleted at serial No.16. However, later on, the Deputy Director, Elementary Education, Solan, H.P. has again issued appointment orders on 09.12.1997 to 15 candidates including the petitioner, who figured at serial No.5 in continuation of his earlier letter dated 27.05.1997. Therefore, in view of the facts stated above, the petition is liable to be dismissed. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record carefully. 6. It is not in dispute that the name of the petitioner was in the select list of the Part Time Water Carriers and in the appointment order dated 27.05.1997, her name was not mentioned. Even at serial No.16, where she had to be figured, no person was shown and the name has been shown to be deleted (Annexure P-1). 7. After knowing the fact that the name of the petitioner has wrongly been deleted in the office order dated 5 2026:HHC:16799 27.05.1997, she was subsequently offered the appointment as per officer order dated 09.12.1997, which was in continuation of earlier order dated 27.05.1997 and in sequel to the said office order, she had joined her duties at Government Primary School, Trangla in Education Block Kuthar on 15.12.1997. Once the respondents have admitted the fact that her name has wrongly been deleted from the first appointment order dated 27.05.1997 and further the subsequent office order dated 09.12.1997 was in continuation of the earlier office order dated 27.05.1997, the petitioner is at least entitled to the benefit of regularization at par with other employees, who find place below serial number 16 where her name was to be included in (Annexure P-1). 8. So far as the plea taken that the petition is barred by law of limitation is concerned, once the respondents have issued the appointment letter to the petitioner in continuation of earlier orders, she can be denied seniority, but her claim for regularization can not be denied. On account of her non- regularization, she is suffering every month as she is getting less salary and thus, the cause of action being recurring, the petition cannot be said to be barred by limitation for the purpose of regularization. The petitioner can be denied 6 2026:HHC:16799 seniority and not regularization at par with the other employees, who have been appointed earlier to her and were placed below in the select list (Annexure P-6). The petitioner, being a Part Time Water Carrier, was unaware of the fact that she would be placed in a disadvantageous position later on when she was offered appointment. Once, the respondents had rectified the mistake and offered the appointment to the petitioner in continuation of earlier office order dated 27.05.1997, the delay cannot defeat her claim for the purpose of seeking regularization. She can be denied the seniority, but the other benefit such as regularization cannot be denied to her and thus, she is entitled to be regularized when the persons placed below in the list (Annexure P-6) and were appointed vide order dated 27.05.1997, were regularized, provided she fulfills other qualifications required for regularization. 9. Consequently, the present petition is disposed of with the direction to the respondents to regularize the petitioner from the date when services of one Sh.Het Ram, who was at serial No. 18 in the office order dated 27.05.1997, have been regularized, provided she fulfills eligibility criteria with all consequential benefits. The financial benefits will be 7 2026:HHC:16799 paid to the petitioner only from the date of filing the petition. In case, the benefits are not released in favour of the petitioner within three months from today, the respondents shall pay interest on the arrears @ 6% per annum from today till actual payment. However, there shall be no orders to cost. Pending miscellaneous application (s), if any, also stand disposed of. 12th May, 2026 ( Jiya Lal Bhardwaj ) (meera) Judge