( 2026:HHC:18721 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA LPA No.291 of 2026 Date of Decision:- 20.05.2026 Ramesh Singh ....Appellant Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Others ....Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellant : Mr. Sanjay Jaswal, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Arsh Rattan, Deputy Advocate General. G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice (Oral) The present appeal is directed against the order dated 21.04.2026, passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP No.10668 of 2023, titled as Ramesh Singh Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, whereby the petitioner’s prayer for regularization from an earlier date was rejected on the ground of delay and latches on account of the fact that the delay of more than eight years in approaching the Court by the applicant- petitioner could not be satisfactorily explained. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2. Counsel for the appellant has sought to convince us that he was seeking the benefit of regularization w.e.f. 01.02.2010 on the completion of eight years of daily wage service, as similarly situated persons have been given the same benefits, in view of the the policy dated 07.05.2010 (Annexure P- 10). 3. We have gone through the paper-book. Apparently when the petitioner-employee was granted the benefit of regularization on 31.08.2015 (Annexure P-1), he had been absorbed in the Health Department from Women & Child Welfare Department. Thereafter, he had chosen not to agitate for his grievances till the filing of the writ petition in the year 2023. 4. In the reply as such, though there may be a considerable merit that the State had to consider his case for regularization on the basis of the Regularization Policy on completing eight years of continuous service, but the fact remains that as per the pleadings of the reply filed by respondents No.2 & 4, in the Women and Child Development, Department, where the petitioner-employee had been initially employed, there was no vacancy in his parent Department, against which he could have been regularized at that time after 3 completion of eight years of his service as daily wager in accordance with the Regularization Policy of 2012. 5. 5. The rejoinder as such only denies the fact that there was no vacancy and similarity as such was sought as was in the case of Dila Ram Vs. State of H.P. and Others. 6. Reliance placed upon Dila Ram case (supra) as such would go on to show that it was the case whereby as per the directions dated 15.07.2021 in Execution Petition No.126 of 2019, arising out of the decision in CWP No.10426 of 2012, whereby certain officials were given the regularization on the date of their completion of eight years of continuous daily wage service. Apparently, the set of employees in the said case had agitated for their grievances way-back in the year 2012 and eventually the State was compelled to give them benefits, keeping in view the order dated 15.07.2021 passed in the said Execution Petition which had been filed in the year 2019. 7. Apparently, the petitioner has chosen not to avail the legal remedy at any stage and was satisfied with his regularization order in 2015 at a belated stage as such thus approached the writ Court. 8. In such circumstances, keeping in view the above, we are of the considered opinion that no exception can be made 4 to the order dated 21.04.2026, passed by the learned Single Judge while rejecting the claim of the petitioner-employee on the ground of delay and laches also. Resultantly, we do not find any plausible reason to take a different view than what the learned Single Judge has taken. 9. Accordingly, the present appeal also stands dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Shall also stands disposed of. (G.S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice (Bipin Chander Negi) Judge 20th May, 2026 (Munish Thakur)