Dismissed

Kusum Kumari v. State of Hp and Others

Himachal Pradesh HC18 Jun 2026LPA/216/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

An appeal against dismissal of a writ petition seeking re-engagement as Lecturer was dismissed by the Division Bench. The Court held that the petition was barred by delay and laches as it was filed after a decade without prior representation, distinguishing it from a relied-upon precedent where timely action was shown.

What the court decided

AI extract

Kusum Kumari Vs State of Hp and Others — Service and Employment | Himachal Pradesh HC (2026)

¶1

2026:HHC:23589

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA

¶3

LPA No. 216 of 2026 Decided on : 18.06.2026

Kusum Kumari

…Appellant

Versus

State of Himachal Pradesh and others

¶8

…Respondents

¶9

Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin C. Negi, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?¹ For the appellant : Mr. Roop Lal Chaudhary, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Gobind Korla, Additional Advocate General. G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice (Oral )

¶10

The present appeal is preferred against the order passed by the learned Single Judge in Civil Writ Petition No. 16642 of 2025, titled Kusum Kumari Vs. State of H.P. and others, dated 04.12.2025, whereby the writ petition filed by the present appellant was dismissed, on the ground that the grievance of the petitioner had become stale with the passage of time and suffered from delay and laches, which had not been explained in the writ petition.

¶11

The benefit of Notification dated 22.05.2014 (Annexure P-1) as such, had been sought to be taken by the appellant for re-engagement of her services as Lecturer 1^{Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?}

¶12

¶13

2026:HHC:23589

¶14

(Sanskrit) on the strength of an order passed by this Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 7525 of 2012, titled Ashwani Kumar Sharma Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, dated 01.01.2014 (Annexure P-4).

¶15

The learned Single Judge found that since the year 2014, no request had been made for re-engagement and the representation had only been filed on 05.08.2025 (Annexure P-5) and cause of action had accrued to the petitioner years ago.

¶16

Counsel for the appellant had relied upon another judgment passed by learned Single Bench in CWPOA No. 4078 of 2020, titled Hans Raj Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, dated 12.09.2025 and pointed out that in similar circumstances, the relief had been granted by another learned Single Judge.

¶17

A perusal of the said judgment would go on to show that the employee had filed Original Application No. 1400 of 2018 before the State Administrate Tribunal, challenging the refusal of re-engagement as per orders dated 09.09.2013, 21.10.2013 and 11.04.2018 and resultantly, the writ petition had been allowed.

¶18

It is apparent that the employee in the said application had agitated his grievances before the concerned Authority firstly and only on account of the final rejection in the year 2018, he had filed the Original Application in the year 2018,

¶19

¶20

2026:HHC:23589

¶21

which led to the decision on 12.09.2025. Therefore, the counsel for the appellant as such, can take no support from the same, as in the present case, after 2014, no effort was made as such to approach the competent Authority for consideration.

¶22

It is the settled principle that in service matters, issue has to be raised within six months and not beyond the period of one year.

¶23

In the present case, the writ petition had been filed after more than a decade and, therefore, much water has flown under the bridge. In such circumstances, learned Single Judge was justified in declining to grant the relief and dismissing the petition.

¶24

Argument raised that the matter was pending before the Hon’ble Apex Court, is also of no help as such since, apparently, the Hon’ble Division Bench had already ruled in favour of the employees by setting aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge and had held out that the State had made such appointments by framing policies when the qualified teachers were not available and the same could not be termed as illegal in view of the long service rendered by them and it was always open for the State to regularize their services.

¶25

Having not agitated her grievances by the appellant at an appropriate time and on account of the view taken by the

¶26

¶27

2026:HHC:23589

¶28

learned Single Judge, in the peculiar facts and circumstances, there is no merit in the present appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.

¶29

(G.S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice

¶30

(Bipin C. Negi) Judge

¶31

June 18, 2026 (Shivank Thakur)

Kusum Kumari v. State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Kusum Kumari v. State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dinesh Kumar Vs Hpu and Others

State of Hp and Others Vs Surinder

Akhil Thakur Vs PNB and Others

Jarnail Singh Vs Hpsebl

Chanchala Devi Vs State of Hp and Others

Pankaj Chauhan Vs State of Hp and Others