Allowed¶20

Union of India v. Surinder Kumar

Himachal Pradesh HC11 Mar 2026LPA/13/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Regularization of temporary/daily-wage employee; Group-D category; LDC (Lower Division Clerk); Data Entry Operators absorbed on counsel's statement; absence of specific pleading/instance of junior similarly situated person; Article 14 equality violation test; directions of Single Judge unjustified and set aside; appeal allowed; Himachal Pradesh High Court; LPA No.13 of 2017; Union of India v. Surinder Kumar; decided 11.03.2026.

What did the court decide?

Appeal allowed; the order passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP No.1031 of 2014 (titled Surinder Kumar Vs. Union of India), decided on 06.09.2016, set aside; the present appeal stands disposed of and pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. ¶20

Union of India Vs Surinder Kumar — Himachal Pradesh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶20

Issue for consideration

Whether the directions issued by the learned Single Judge (to consider the petitioner for regularization in Group-D Category or as LDC) were justified/sustainable, given that the writ petition contained no specific instance of any similarly situated person (junior to the petitioner) who had been granted the benefit of regularization.

¶17

Court's answer

The directions passed by the learned Single Judge were not justified.

¶18

Ratio / Principle

It is a well-settled principle that a petitioner must make out his case by specific pleading, giving the instance of a person junior to him who has been granted the benefit of regularization, so that the respondents can put forward their defence and justification and the Court can balance the rights inter se the parties and conclude whether Article 14 of the Constitution of India has been violated.

¶18

Key takeaways

In the absence of such specific pleadings, this Court is not in a position to sustain the order of the learned Single Judge issuing directions to consider regularization on the statement of a counsel made for the petitioner (not for the respondent).ratio¶18

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

LPA (Union of India and Others v. Surinder Kumar and Anr., LPA No.13 of 2017, decided 11.03.2026, HP High Court, Shimla; Bench: G.S. Sandhawalia, CJ and Bipin Chander Negi, J): Division Bench allowed the appeal and set aside the learned Single Judge's order dated 06.09.2016 in CWP No.1031 of 2014, which had directed consideration of the petitioner's case for regularization in Group-D Category or as LDC within eight weeks on the strength of counsel's statement that similarly situated Data Entry Operators had been absorbed. Held: the writ petition was bereft of any specific instance of a similarly situated (junior) person granted regularization; a petitioner must plead specific instances so that respondents can offer justification and the Court can balance the parties' rights and determine whether Article 14 of the Constitution of India has been violated; absent such pleadings the Single Judge's directions could not be sustained.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

LPA No.13 of 2017 Decided on : 11.03.2026

¶3

Union of India and Others. ...Appellants

¶4

Versus

¶5

Surinder Kumar and Anr. …Respondents.

¶6

Coram

¶7

Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice.

¶8

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge.

¶9

Whether approved for reporting?¹

¶10

For the appellants :	Mr. Balram Sharma, Deputy Solicitor General of India, for respondents No.1 to 3-Union of India.
For the respondents :	Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Sohail Khan, Advocate.

¶11

G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice (Oral)

¶12

By way of the present appeal, a challenge has been laid to the order passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP No.1031 of 2014, titled Surinder Kumar Vs. Union of India, decided on 06.09.2016, whereby the learned Single Judge has directed consideration of the case of the petitioner/respondent for regularization in Group-D Category or as LDC within a period of eight weeks.

¶13

The order under challenge is dated 06.09.2016. The reason, which weighed with the learned Single Judge was that the respondent/petitioner had worked uninterruptedly for more than seven

¶14

1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes

¶15

-2-

¶16

years. On the basis of the instructions given to the learned counsel for the respondent/petitioner that similarly situated Data Entry Operators were subsequently absorbed in Group-D category/LDC, therefore, the necessary directions were issued.

¶17

We have gone through the writ petition in detail. The writ petition is totally bereft of any specific instance of any similarly situated persons, who had been granted the said benefit and there are only bald and vague averments that a person definitely junior to the petitioner was offered appointment in a purely arbitrary and discriminatory manner as Data Entry Operators, some of them junior to the persons, had been made LDC in other campuses of respondent No.2. No specific instance has been given.

¶18

We are of the considered opinion that directions passed by the learned Single Judge were not justified. It is well-settled principle that petitioner has to make out his case by specific pleading and giving instance of a person junior to him, who has been granted the benefit of regularization so that the respondents can put forward their defence and give valid justification, as to in what circumstances such a person has been given the benefit of regularization, so that the Court can also balance the rights as such inter se the parties and also come to a valid conclusion, whether Article 14 of the Constitution of India has been violated or not. In the absence of any such pleadings, we are not in a position to sustain the order passed by the learned Single Judge, in

¶19

-3-

¶20

issuing directions to consider regularization on the statement of a counsel not for the respondent, but for the petitioner. Resultantly the appeal is allowed and the order passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP No.1031 of 2014, titled Surinder Kumar Vs. Union of India,

¶21

decided on 06.09.2016, is set aside. Accordingly, the present appeal stands disposed of. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

¶22

(G.S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice

¶23

(Bipin Chander Negi) Judge 11^th March, 2026 (Gaurav Rawat)

Union of India v. Surinder Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union of India v. Surinder Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hem Lata Vs the State of Hp and Others

State of Hp and Others Vs Parul Sharma

State of Hp and Others Vs Raju Ram and Another

State of Hp Vs Lakhan Pal Mahajan

State of Hp and Ors. Vs Harish Lakhanpal Adn Anr.

State of Hp and Others Vs Geeta Devi