Dismissed¶42

Ashish Kumar Pathania and Others v. Hpsebl

Himachal Pradesh HC17 Jul 2026CMP.M/1045/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Delay and laches; acquiescence; estoppel in service matters; contract versus regular appointment; retrospective regularisation claim; Clause 15 and Clause 15-A HPSEBL R&P Regulations; Advertisement No.23/2012 post-code 340 Computer Operators; requisition dated 21.06.2012 HPSSSB Hamirpur; HP Regularization Policy 04.05.2017; confirmation 18.06.2022; Bichitrananda Behera (2023) AIR SCC 5064 relied on; Arjun Singh (2015) 15 SCC 713 distinguished; HPSEBL; Letters Patent Appeal dismissed; Himachal Pradesh High Court Shimla.

What did the court decide?

Only procedural relief: nominal delay of 03 days in filing the appeal condoned via CMP(M) No.1045 of 2026; no substantive relief granted — appeal dismissed and the learned Single Judge's order dated 06.11.2025 upheld. ¶42

Ashish Kumar Pathania and Others Vs Hpsebl — Himachal Pradesh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶42

Issue for consideration

Whether the appellants, engaged as Computer Operators in HPSEBL on contract basis under Clause 15.A of the R&P Regulations, are entitled to regular appointment retrospectively from the date of their initial contractual appointment. +1 more

¶16

Court's answer

The argument that the posts created in the regular pay-scale had to be filled on a regular basis is misconceived: the requisition dated 21.06.2012 (Annexure R-X) shows the Computer Operator posts were to be filled on contract basis through direct recruitment following decisions taken by the Service Committee and the Board of Directors of HPSEB Limited.

¶32

Ratio / Principle

Having first accepted the requisition and advertisement back in 2012 and thereafter the appointment orders in 2014, the appellants' claim for regular appointment from the date of initial appointment does not lie in their mouth at this belated stage after ten years; delay, laches and acquiescence are to be applied more strictly in service matters, vindicating the learned Single Judge.

¶41

Key takeaways

The selection process under post code 340 comprised merely a screening test (objective-type MCQs worth 200 marks and a 30-marks interview for qualifiers), not the rigorous test whose standard and syllabus were to be determined by the Board or the recruiting agency; therefore the appellants cannot fall back upon it.ratio¶36
There is no scope to interfere with the well reasoned order dated 06.11.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge; consequently the appeal stands dismissed and pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stand disposed of.ratio¶42

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Himachal Pradesh High Court Division Bench (G.S. Sandhawalia, CJ and Bipin Chander Negi, J) dismisses LPA No.415 of 2026 by Ashish Kumar Pathania and others against the learned Single Judge's order dated 06.11.2025 in CWP No.644 of 2024 dismissing their claim for regular appointment from the date of initial contract-based engagement as Computer Operators in HPSEBL. Engaged under Clause 15.A of the R&P Regulations following requisition dated 21.06.2012 to HPSSSB Hamirpur and Advertisement No.23/2012 (Sr.No.21, post-code 340, 80 posts, Pay Band Rs.10900-34800 + Rs.3550 Grade Pay, contractual amount Rs.14,450/-), the appellants accepted contract appointments on 24.01.2014, were regularized with prospective effect on 22.05.2017 per the HP Regularization Policy dated 04.05.2017 (adopted by HPSEBL on 16.05.2017) and confirmed on 18.06.2022 via the Class-III DPC; the writ petition was filed only in 2024. The Bench holds the claim does not lie in their mouth at this belated stage of ten years — delay, laches and acquiescence being applied more strictly in service matters; the requisition evidences contractual direct recruitment, and the screening-test objection is untenable. The Single Judge's reliance on Bichitrananda Behera ((2023) AIR SCC 5064) is endorsed; the appellants' reliance on Arjun Singh ((2015) 15 SCC 713) was rightly distinguished. Appeal dismissed; three-day filing delay condoned; pending miscellaneous applications disposed of.

¶1

( 2026:HHC:29403 )

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMP(M) No.1045 of 2026 in LPA No.415 of 2026

¶3

Date of Decision:- 17.07.2026

¶4

Ashish Kumar Pathania and Others ....Appellants Versus HPSEBL ....Respondent

¶5

Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge.

¶6

Whether approved for reporting?¹ For the Appellants : Mr. Dheeraj Kanwar, Advocate. For the Respondent : Ms. Sunita Sharma, Senior Advocate with Ms. Harshita Dogra and Ms. Hiaa Sharma, Advocates.

¶7

G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice (Oral)

¶8

CMP(M) No.1045 of 2026

¶9

Keeping in view the averments made in the

¶10

application, duly supported by an affidavit of Dheeraj Kanwar,

¶11

Advocate, nominal delay of 03 days in filing the appeal is condoned.

¶12

2. The application stands disposed off accordingly.

¶13

1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶14

¶15

LPA No.415 of 2026

¶16

3. Consideration in the present Letters Patent Appeal is sought to the order passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP No.644 of 2024, titled as Sanjay Kumar and others Vs. Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Limited, dated 06.11.2025. The writ petition was filed by the appellants/ unsuccessful writ petitioners, wherein their claim for regular appointment from the date of their initial appointment on a contract basis was dismissed.

¶17

4. The learned Single Judge, after assessing the facts of the case had come to the conclusion that the appointment was made under Clause 15.A of the Recruitment & Promotion (R&P) Regulations for the post of Computer Operators on contract basis, and a requisition dated 21.06.2012 (Annexure RX) had also been sent to the Himachal Pradesh Subordinate Services Selection Board (HPSSSB), Hamirpur on the prescribed format. The petitioners’ having participated in the selection process under the advertisement dated 15.09.2012 for the aforesaid posts, had accepted appointment orders on contract basis on 24.01.2014 (Annexure P-4) and received the benefit of regularization three years later on 22.05.2017

¶18

¶19

(Annexure P-5). Furthermore, their services were confirmed on 18.06.2022 (Annexure P-6) and the writ petition was subsequently filed in the year 2024. The learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition had held that they were estopped from challenging the earlier selection process of which they were beneficiaries.

¶20

5. The learned Single Judge had placed reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Bichitrananda Behera Vs. State of Orissa and Others (2023) AIR SCC 5064 to hold out that delay and laches serve the important purpose of preventing stale claims that disrupt settled rights, relating to the stability and finality of administrative decisions.

¶21

6. Reliance had also been placed upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Arjun Singh and Others v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Others (2015) 15 SCC 713, by the appellants which was rightly distinguished. In that case, the requisition for the posts was sent to the Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission on regular basis, and candidates were to be placed on probation for a period of two years in the regular pay-scale. However, the authorities had issued the appointments on contract basis. Under these circumstances,

¶22

¶23

the case was allowed by the Apex Court and it was held that such action by the authorities amounts to an unfair employment practice, and is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, while setting aside the judgment of this Court. Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed, leaving the prayer open regarding relief No. 3(i), which was not pressed. This relief pertained to framing of Recruitment and Promotion (R&P) Regulations commensurate from the initial stage of other cadre posts.

¶24

7. Counsel for the appellants has vehemently submitted that the initially posts of Computer Operators had been created in the Pay Scale for regular incumbents in the Pay Band of Rs.10900-34800+3550 Grade Pay in various Units (Annexure P-2). It is thus submitted that the requisition had wrongly been sent to the Secretary, Himachal Pradesh Subordinate Services Selection Board, Hamirpur, to fill up 100 (one hundred) posts of Computer Operator on contract basis in the Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Limited (HPSEBL) (hereinafter referred to as the “Rules”).

¶25

8. Clause 15 of the “Rules” stipulated that appointments on a regular basis can be made on the basis of a

¶26

¶27

viva-voce test or, if the Board or other authorized/nominated recruiting authority considers it necessary or expedient, by a written or practical test, the standard and syllabus of which will be determined by the Board or the recruiting authority, as the case may be. Further, as per Clause 15-A of the “Rules”, selection on a contract basis can be made either by the concerned recruiting agency (i.e., HPSSSB) or a Departmental Selection Committee, as the case may be.

¶28

9. The petitioners having gone through the rigorous of the test under the said Regulations, it is thus submitted that because the posts were created within the pay-scale, it was incumbent upon the respondents to appoint them on regular basis.

¶29

10. Counsel for the respondent-HPSEBL, on the other hand, has submitted that the judgment in Arjun Singh’s case (supra) was rightly distinguished, as the petitioners had accepted the advertisement of 2012 in question, subsequently applied for the said posts in pursuance of the same, and had obtained the benefits of appointment in 2014 and regularisation in the said pay scale from 22.05.2017, before

¶30

¶31

being confirmed on 18.06.2022, consequently, they had rightly been found non-suited on account of estoppel.

¶32

11. We have gone through the paper-book. It is apparent that the argument raised is misconceived as it is clear from the requisition dated 21.06.2012 (Annexure R-X) that the posts of Computer Operators were to be filled on contract basis through direct recruitment by the Board/Department, following the decisions taken by the Service Committee and the Board of Directors of HPSEB Limited in separate meetings.

¶33

12. Apparently, in pursuance of the said requisition, the Board had issued Advertisement No.23/2012, through which various posts were to be filled. These were specifically mentioned at Sr. No.21 of the advertisement, where post-code 340 was assigned to a total of 80 posts of Computer Operators to be filled under the Pay Band of Rs. 10900–34800 + Rs. 3550 Grade Pay (Contractual amount Rs.14,450/-). This was in synchronization with the Rules, specifically Regulations 15 and 15-A, which established two categories regular and contractual where the salary was fixed at the minimum Pay

¶34

¶35

Band of Rs.10900/- + Grade Pay of Rs.3550/-, and Rs.14450/per month respectively.

¶36

13. The advertisement specified the essential qualifications for the post of Computer Operator. Furthermore, under post Code 340 of the said advertisement and the selection process for the posts consisted of an objective-type screening test (MCQs) worth 200 marks and a 30-marks interview for the candidates, who qualify in the screening test. The objective test evaluated candidates on General English (10+2 standard), Hindi (Matric standard), Everyday Science, Logic, Current Affairs, and General Knowledge (including Himachal Pradesh), as well as Information Technology and Computer Science. Thus, it is apparent that the said test was merely a screening test and not the rigorous test of which the standard and syllabus as such had to be determined by the Board or the recruiting agency and fall back on the same cannot be made by the appellants on the same.

¶37

14. The advertisement further provided under Clause 7 (General Instructions, sub-clause 8) that candidates selected for appointment to various posts on a contract basis would have to execute an agreement with the concerned appointing

¶38

¶39

authority, in accordance with the provisions of the Recruitment & Promotion (R&P) Rules for the post in question. Accordingly, the necessary appointment orders were issued on 24.01.2014 (Annexure P-4) following the selection of the candidates. Under these orders, the salary was fixed at the minimum of the Pay Band of Rs.10900/- plus Grade Pay of Rs.3550/-, totaling Rs.14,450/- per month, and the appointees were directed to report for duty. This appointment was accepted by the petitioners, who subsequently received the benefit of regularization three years later, in line with the Himachal Pradesh Government Regularization Policy dated 04.05.2017, which had been duly adopted by the HPSEBL on 16.05.2017. 15. They were regularized in their respective pay scales as per the regulations, which was with prospective effect from the said date, when the regularization orders were issued, making them liable to be posted anywhere in the State. The benefit of confirmation of services was thereafter given on the recommendation of the Class-III Departmental Promotion Committee (Ministerial Services) in the entry grade of Computer Operators, effective from the date of the DPC (i.e., 17.05.2022) vide order dated 18.06.2022 (Annexure P-6).

¶40

¶41

16. Having first accepted the requisition itself and followed by the advertisement way back in the year 2012, and thereafter having accepted the appointment orders in the year 2014, the present appellants’ claim, for a regular appointment from the date of the initial appointment does not lie in their mouth at this belated stage after a period of ten years. The learned Single Judge has rightly relied upon the judgment, as noticed above, on the principle of delay, laches and acquiescence, which is to be applied more strictly in service matters.

¶42

17. In such circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that there is no scope to interfere with the well reasoned order dated 06.11.2025, passed by the learned Single Judge. Resultantly, the present appeal stands dismissed.

¶43

18. Pending miscellaneous application(s) if any, shall also stand disposed of.

¶44

(G.S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice

¶45

(Bipin Chander Negi) Judge

¶46

17^th July, 2026 (Munish Thakur)

Ashish Kumar Pathania and Others v. Hpsebl

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashish Kumar Pathania and Others v. Hpsebl

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bansal Enterprises Vs the State of Hp

State of Hp and Another Vs M/s Tenzin Constructions Co. Pvt. Ltd.

State of Hp and Another Vs Anil Kumar

Madan Lal Vs State of Hp and Others

Rajinder Kumar Vs State of Hp and Anr.

State of Hp and Others Vs Roshan Lal