[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Himachal Pradesh High Court
Decided On: 25.03.2026 vs State Of Himachal Pradesh And Others on 25 March, 2026
Author: Ajay Mohan Goel
Bench: Ajay Mohan Goel
2026:HHC:8921
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CWP No. 3583 of 2026
Decided on: 25.03.2026
.
Yudhvir Singh .......Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and others ... Respondents
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge.
of
Whether approved for reporting?1
_____________________________________________________
For the petitioner : M/s Chandranarayana Singh, Dr.
rt Nidhi Singh, Anshul Gandhi and
Ramesh Kumar Advocates.
For the respondents : Mr. Rahul Thakur, Deputy
Advocate General for respondents -
State.
: Mr. Susheel, Gautam, Advocate
for respondents No. 4.
Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral)
Notice. Mr. Rahul Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate
General and Mr. Susheel Gautam, learned Counsel, accept notice on
behalf of the respective respondents.
2. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has inter
alia prayed for the following reliefs:-
"i) Issue a writ of Mandamus or other appropriate writ
order or direction directing quashing the impugned order
Dated 12.08.2025 (Annexure P-12) & with further directions
to the Respondents to Regularize the contractual services of
Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2026:HHC:8921
.
the Petitioner on the post of Data Entry Operator in the
respondents department (i.e. Respondent No.1 to 3) after
completion of Six Years of contractual service i.e. w.e.f.
20.10.2015 in terms of the regularization policy framed by
the respondent State with all consequential benefits.
of
ii) Issue a writ of Mandamus or other appropriate writ order
or direction directing the respondents to re-fix the pay of the
rt
Petitioner and pay the entire consequential benefits in
favour of the Petitioner with in time bound manner along
with 12% Interest.
iii) Issue a writ of Mandamus or other appropriate writ order
or direction, by directing the respondents to pay equal pay
and perks to Petitioner from the initial date of his
appointment to the post of Data Entry Operator working on
contract basis Or after completion of Two years of
contractual service as paid to regular employees of the
government department in terms of the law laid down by
the Hon'ble Apex Court of India with all consequential
benefits."
3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has drawn the
attention of the Court of Annexure P-9 and has submitted that when
the petitioner had earlier approached the Court, said petition was
disposed of by this Court in terms of Annexure P-8, order dated
2026:HHC:8921
.
17.05.2024, with the direction to the authority to decide the
representation of the petitioner in terms of the averments thereof
within a period of six weeks. Learned Counsel has submitted that in
compliance to the said order, the Authority has passed order dated
of
03.10.2024 (Annexure P-9), in which it is mentioned that though the
case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the judgment passed in
Sant Ram and another vs. State of H.P. and others (CWPOA No.
rt
3562 of 2019) decided on 06.09.2022, but as the matter is pending
before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP, no further action can be
taken in the matter. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted
that now the matter stands decided by Hon'ble Supreme Court of
India as the SLP stands dismissed by Hon'ble Supreme Court and so
also was the fate of the review petition. Accordingly, he submitted
that this petition be disposed of by directing the respondents to
confer same benefits upon the petitioner as have been granted to
Sant Ram by the Court.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned
Additional Advocate General and learned counsel for respondent
No.4 and have also carefully gone through the pleadings as well as
documents appended therewith.
5. The petitioner herein is seeking a mandamus to the
2026:HHC:8921
.
respondents for regularization of his contractual service on the post
of Data Entry Operator upon completion of six years, in terms of the
averments made in the writ petition.
6. It is a matter of record that earlier also, the petitioner
of
had approached this Court and the petition was disposed of with the
direction that let the representation of the petitioner be decided by
the Authority concerned. It is further a matter of record that in the
rt
course of deciding the said representation of the petitioner, which
was decided vide Annexure P-9, dated 03.10.2024, the following was
observed by the Authority that the case of the petitioner was no
different than Sant Ram's case.
7. Thus, it is evident from the decision of the competent
Authority that it stood admitted by the Department that the case of
the petitioner was not different from that of Sant Ram. That being
the case, now the respondent-Department cannot be allowed to take
the plea that the case of the petitioner is fundamentally different
from that of Sant Ram, as is the stand taken in the reply, which is
hereby rejected.
8. Therefore, in light of the fact that in terms of the earlier
order dated 3.10.2024, passed by the competent Authority, the
action in the case of the petitioner was deferred on account of the
2026:HHC:8921
.
pendency of the matter before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sant
Ram's case (supra) and now as that issue has attained finality, this
petition is allowed and respondents are directed to confer benefits
upon the petitioner by treating the directions passed in Sant Ram's
of
case as having been passed in the case of the petitioner also. The
contractual services of the petitioner shall be regularized from due
date, notional and actual benefits shall accrue, three years
rt
preceding the date of filing of the first writ petition by the petitioner.
Let needful be done, within a period of three months from today.
9. The petition is disposed of in above terms. Pending
miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of
accordingly.
(Ajay Mohan Goel)
Judge
March 25, 2026
(narender)
