2026:HHC:16242 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No. 596 of 2024 Decided on : 12.05.2026 Daljit Singh …Petitioner Versus Additional Chief Secretary (JSV) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh and others …Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes For the petitioner : Mr. Ashwani Chawla, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, Additional Advocate General. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs:- “(A) That a writ of mandamus be issued against the respondents directing them to consider the joining date of the petitioner as 30.09.2017 instead of 06.10.2017. (B) That consequently the services of the petitioner may kindly be ordered to be regularized w.e.f. 1Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2026:HHC:16242 01.10.2020 instead of 01.04.2021 with all consequential benefits.” 2. The case of the petitioner is that process was undertaken by the respondents for recruitment against the post of Junior Officer Assistant JOA (IT) through Staff Selection Commission, Hamirpur, in the year 2017. The petitioner successfully participated in the same and vide Annexure P-1, dated 03.10.2017, Engineer-in-Chief, IPH Department, Shimla, wrote to Superintending Engineer, IPH Circle, Una on the subject “recruitment to the post of JOA (IT) on contract basis”. In the said communication, it was mentioned that the names of the candidates mentioned therein were received from Subordinate Selection Board for recruitment against the post of JOA (IT) on contract basis and the Superintending Engineer was called upon to issue appointment orders to them. Thereafter, vide Annexure P-2, dated 06.10.2017, appointment letter was issued to the petitioner and he submitted his joining on 06.10.2017 itself. 3. The contention of the petitioner is that the result of the process undertaken for recruitment of JOA (IT) was 3 2026:HHC:16242 declared by the Staff Selection Commission, Hamirpur, on 15.09.2017. On 25.09.2017, Staff Selection Commission, Hamipur, allocated various Departments to the candidates as per their requisitions and the petitioner was allocated to the Irrigation and Public Health Department. Thereafter, on 29.09.2017 on the receipt of communication from Staff Selection Commission, Hamirpur, some of the departments issued appointment letters to persons similarly situated as the petitioner. However, as far as the respondent-Department is concerned, Engineer-in-Chief wrote to Superintending Engineer only on 03.10.2017 to issue an appointment letter, which was issued on 06.10.2017. As a result thereof, whereas the services of those who joined before 01.10.2020, were regularized with effect from 01.10.2020, but the services of the petitioner were regularized after 3 ½ years with effect from 01.04.2021 and it is in this backdrop that this petition has been filed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that in the present case, the petitioner has been made to suffer for no fault of his. He submitted that it was not the choice of the petitioner that he was to be allocated to the IPH Department and further it 4 2026:HHC:16242 was not his act which resulted in the delayed appointment. He referred to the judgment of Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court passed in CWP No. 5488 of 2020, titled Gulshan Bhatia & Ors. Vs. State of H.P. & anr., decided on 26.03.2021 and submitted that in similar circumstances, candidates who had joined on 02.10.2017, were given the benefit of holidays on account whereof, they could not join earlier and were treated as having joined on 29.09.2017. On this count, learned counsel argued that the petition be allowed, as prayed for. No other point was urged. 5. On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General submitted that the petition was hit by delays and laches and otherwise also, the petitioner was not entitled for any relief, as prayed for. He submitted that in the present case, after the recommendation was received from the Staff Selection Commission, Hamirpur, the appointment letter was issued to the petitioner only on 06.10.2017 and because the offer was made to him on 06.10.2017, he cannot claim that this offer be backdated and he be construed to have been appointed on 29.09.2017. He submitted that the judgment being relied upon 5 2026:HHC:16242 by the petitioner passed in CWP No. 5488 of 2020, was of no help to the petitioner for the reason that in those cases, the appointment letter was issued to the candidates on 29.09.2017, but they could not join before 02.10.2017 on account of holidays. He submitted that in the present case, as the petitioner was offered appointment only on 06.10.2017 and no right had accrued to him before the issuance of appointment letter, the present petition is completely misconceived. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the pleadings and the documents appended therewith, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner is not entitled for any relief. 7. In the present case, the Staff Selection Commission, Hamirpur, after fulfilling all the codal formalities, recommended the name of the petitioner for being appointed as a JOA (IT) to the IPH Department. On the basis of said recommendation, the Engineer-in-Chief concerned wrote to the Superintending Engineer concerned on 03.10.2017 to offer appointment to the petitioner. Thereafter, the appointment letter was issued to the petitioner by Superintending Engineer on 6 2026:HHC:16242 06.10.2017 and it is on the basis of this letter that the petitioner joined on 06.10.2017. 8. Thus the petitioner was born in the cadre though on contract basis only on 06.10.2017. In light of the fact that the petitioner was born in the cadre only on 06.10.2017, there is no merit in his contention that he should be offered appointment as from the date of the recommendation of his name by the Staff Selection Commission, Hamirpur. The Staff Selection Commission, Hamipur, is only a recommending body. Whether or not appointment is to be offered, is the discretion of the employer. Herein, it is not as if the employer acted with considerable delay in offering appointment to the petitioner. Immediately, after the receipt of the recommendation, the appointment letter was issued to the petitioner on 06.10.2017 and he joined on 06.10.2017 itself. 9. In terms of instructions dated 22.04.2020, on the subject “regularization of contract appointees in the Government Departments”, copy whereof was made available for the perusal of the Court, decision was taken by the Government to regularize those who had completed 3 years of 7 2026:HHC:16242 continuous service as on 31.03.2020, on the terms and conditions mentioned in the said instructions and services of contractual appointees who were completing 3 years of continuous service as on 30.09.2020, were instructed to be regularized after 30.09.2020. Obviously, as the petitioner had not completed 3 years of service on 30.09.2020, he was not covered by these instructions. Instructions were issued on 22.04.2020. Thus the petitioner was well aware that in terms of these instructions, he was not eligible for regularization as on 30.09.2020. Yet, neither he challenged these instructions nor he filed any writ petition raising the issues which are raised in the present petition. This petition has been filed only in the year 2024 without any explanation for the delays and laches and after his services in fact stood regularized with effect from 01.04.2021. 10. De hors this fact, in the present case, as the appointment letter was issued to petitioner only on 06.10.2017 and he joined thereafter, he cannot claim any benefit of the judgment being relied, reference whereof has been given by me hereinabove. A perusal of the said judgment demonstrates 8 2026:HHC:16242 that therein the appointment letter was issued to the candidates on 29.09.2017, but the petitioner could not join on account of the subsequent holidays which fell immediately after 29.09.2017 and he could join only on 02.10.2017. It was in these peculiar facts that the Hon’ble Division Bench gave benefit to the petitioner therein, keeping in view the fact that the letter of appointment already stood issued on 29.09.2017. In the present case, as the appointment letter was not issued before 30.09.2017, the petitioner could not otherwise also have claimed the benefit of instructions dated 22.04.2020. 11. Therefore, in light of above discussion, as obviously, there is no merit in the present petition, the same is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge May 12, 2026 (Shivank Thakur)