High CourtsSingle Bench(2023) 09 SHI CK 0015

Pushpinder Singh And Another vs State Of Himachal Pradesh And Others

High Court Of Himachal Pradesh · Decided on 6 September 2023

HON’BLE JUDGES
Ajay Mohan Goel, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
CWPOA No. 919 Of 2019

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

5 paragraphs · 345 words

Ajay Mohan Goel, J

1.

By way of this petition, the petitioners have sought a mandamus to the respondents to regularize their services immediately on completion of 8 years of service on contract basis.

2.

The case of the petitioners is that petitioner No. 1 was appointed as DPE on contract basis on 26.10.1999 in Government Senior Secondary School, Kungash, Tehsil Anni, District Kullu, H.P. and petitioner No. 2 was appointed as Lecturer English (School Cadre) on contract basis on 25.09.1998, in Government Senior Secondary School, Kungash, Tehsil Anni, District Kullu, H.P. They continued to serve as such till their services were regularized in terms of office order dated 31st December, 2008, vide Annexures P-2 and P-4 with immediate effect. Their grievance is that whereas the petitioners have been regularized after almost 10 years of their having joined the service of the respondent-Department on contract basis, the services of the persons similarly situated as the petitioners were regularized after completion of 8 years, in terms of office order dated 26.06.2006 (Annexure P-5).

3.

The Court finds that the order of regularization of the petitioners is dated 31.12.2008. Yet, this writ petition in terms whereof they are praying for issuance of a direction to the respondents to regularize their services immediately post completion of 8 years of service on contract basis, was filed on 18.04.2012, i.e. almost after three years and three months as from the date of issuance of their order of regularization. This delay in approaching the Court has not at all been explained in the writ petition.

4.

In the pleadings, there is not even a whisper why the petitioners did not approach the Court within reasonable time as from the date the orders of their regularization were issued, more so, as the relief being claimed by them is not based upon any office order, which came into existence after the date of their regularization. Therefore, as this petition is hit by delay and laches, the same is accordingly dismissed on said count. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.