Himachal Pradesh High Court
Rum Singh vs State Of H.P. & Another on 25 August, 2025
( 2025:HHC:28887 )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA
LPA No.291 of 2025 a/w LPA
Nos.289 and 321 of 2025
.
Decided on: 25th August, 2025
_________________________________________________
1. LPA No.291 of 2025
Rum Singh ....Appellant.
Versus
State of H.P. & another ...Respondents
2. LPA No.289 of 2025
Ram Lal ....Appellant.
Versus
State of H.P. & another ...Respondents
3. LPA No.321 of 2025
Shailja Devi ....Appellant.
Versus
State of H.P. & another ...Respondents
___________________________________________________
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge
Whether approved for reporting? 1
For the Appellant(s): Mr. Hakam Bhardwaj, Advocate.
For the respondents: Ms. Priyanka Chauhan, Deputy
Advocate General for respondent No.1-
State.
Mr. Naveen Kumar Bhardwaj,
Advocate, for respondent No.2.
1
Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2025 21:24:06 :::CIS
2
G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice (Oral)
The present order will dispose of three LPAs bearing
.
No.289, 291 and 321 of 2025 arising out of CWP No.7202 of 2024
titled Ram Lal Vs. State of H.P. and others, CWP No.7204 of 2024
titled Rum Singh Vs. State of H.P. and others and CWP No.7206
of 2024 titled Shaliza Devi Vs. State of H.P. and others, whereby
the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petitions, by noticing
that the claim for regularization from earlier date as such was filed
at a belated stage and there was delay, therefore, the said writ
petitions were not maintainable.
2. Reference can be made to the pleadings in LPA No.321
of 2025, wherein learned Single Judge while deciding CWP
No.7206 of 2024, came to the conclusion that the Writ petitioner
was regularized in the year 2007 and the writ petition was filed in
the year 2024 after 17 years and therefore, the petition is liable to
be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches.
3. In CWP No.7202 of 2024 out of which LPA No.289 of
2025, now arises, it was noticed that the petitioner was regularized
in the year 2017 and writ petition has now been filed in the year
2024 after 7 years.
4. In CWP No.7204 of 2024 out of which LPA No.291 of
2025 now arises, there was a mention that the petitioner was
regularized in the year 2017, but close reading of regularization
order would go on to show that the regularization was done on
05.09.2007.
.
5. We had been persuaded to issue notice in the present
set of appeals on the ground that counsel for the appellant(s) had
submitted that the learned Single Judge in CWP Nos.7203, 7205
and 7207 of 2024 had directed consideration of the similarly
situated persons. One of the order passed in CWP No.7203 of 2024
on 24.12.2024, reads as under:-
"Though, the petitioner has approached this Court
seeking relief of regularization post completion of eight
years of service, however, as prayed for, this petition is
disposed of with the direction that in the event of the
petitioner approaching the Authorities concerned for
conferment of work charge status post completion of
eight years of service on daily wage basis by putting in
240 days in each calendar year, the representation filed
by the petitioner be considered within a period of six
weeks as from the date of receipt thereof and appropriate
orders be passed thereupon. Pending miscellaneous
application(s), if any also stand disposed of accordingly."
6. From the perusal of the above, it would be clear that
what was granted in those set of cases, was the consideration for
the conferment of work charge status post completion of eight years
of service on daily wage basis by putting in 240 days.
7. The order of Executive Officer, thereafter in compliance
of the said order passed in May, 2025 would also go on to show that
work charge status has been given. The said order reads as
.
under:-
"In compliance of the judgment rendered by The Hon'ble High
Court of Himachal Pradesh in CWP No.7203/2024; CWP
No.7205/2024; CWP No.7207/2024 and subsequent
Clarifications received from The Director Urban Development
vide letter No.UD-H(B) (1)-72/2024-2953-54 dated 13.02.2025
and letter No. UD-H(E)(3)-72/2024-11453 dated 17thApril, 2025
wherein undersigned has been directed to comply with the
orders of The Hon'ble High Court and grant work charge status
after completion of Eight years daily wage services (with 240
days in each Calendar year). The work charge status is hereby
accorded to the following employees from the date shown
against their name subject to further directions from the
competent authority.
Sr. Name Designation Work Charge
No. Status Date
1. Sh. Pappu alias Beldar 01-04-2005
Nand Lal
2. Sh. Lachhi Ram Beldar 01-04-2012
3. Sh. Rakesh Kumar Beldar 01-04-2006
Yours faithfully,
Executive Officer,
Municipal Council Kullu
Distt. Kullu (H.P)"
8. Therefore, the parity as such is totally misplaced. The
petitioners already stood regularized much earlier and their equation
with the persons, who have not even regularized, is being wrongly
made out. The principle of delay and laches definitely affect the
.
case of the petitioners, who had approached writ Courts after
belated stages as noticed above after having been regularized
seeking earlier dates of the same, it was always open to them
initially approach this Court immediately in the years 2007 and
2017.
9. The principles of delay and laches have been laid down
in the following judgments of the Apex Court:
(i) In Karnataka Power Corporation Ltd. and another
vs. K.Thangappan and another reported in (2006) 4 SCC 322, it
has been held that the High Court may refuse to exercise extra-
ordinary jurisdiction, if there is such negligence or omission, keeping
in view the fact that it is a discretionary power and it may be refused
to be invoked. Lapse of time and delay are most material and
belated resort to the extraordinary remedy is likely to cause
confusion and public inconvenience.
(ii) In Tridip Kumar Dingal and others vs. State of W.B.
and others reported in (2009) 1 SCC 768, it has been held that it is
a question of discretion and there is no upper or lower limit on the
part of the applicant to assert his right and it depends upon the
breach of fundamental right and the remedy claimed and when and
how the delay arose.
(iii) In Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply & Sewerage
.
Board and others vs. T.T. Murali Babu reported in (2014) 4 SCC
108, similar observations have also flown that though it is the
Constitutional Court's duty to protect the right, but when a person
approaches at his leisure and pleasure, delay would come in his way
on account of inaction on the part of the litigant, since the law does
not permit one to sleep and rise like a phoenix.
10. Therefore, we do not find any plausible reasons to
interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge.
11. Resultantly, the present Appeals are dismissed.
Pending application(s), if any, are disposed off.
( G.S. Sandhawalia )
Chief Justice
25th August, 2025 ( Ranjan Sharma )
(priti) Judge
