IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, S.HIMLA

Civil Writ Petition No.7777 of 2025

Date of Decision: 17.12.2025

____________________________________________________._________________

Deepak Gupta ……...Petitioner

Versus

State of Himachal Pradesh and Others …....Respondents

Coram

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting? Yes.

________________________________________________________________________

For the Petitioner: Mr. Daleep Singh Kaith and Ms. Saroj,

Advocates.

For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar,

oAdditional Advocates General, with Mr. Ravi

Chauhan and Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy

Advocates General, for State.

___________________________________________________________________________

Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)

hPetitioner herein, who at present is working as Senior Assistant in the respondent-department, is aggrieved of order dated 22.03.2025 (Annexure P-11), whereby representation, having been filed by him in terms of order dated 17.06.2024 passed by this Court in CWP No.5041 of 2024, titled as Deepak Gupta Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Others, praying therein to grant him the benefit of regularisation from the date of his initial appointment, came to be

rejected.

2. For having bird’s eye view, relevant facts, as emerge from the pleadings adduced on record by the respective parties, are that

petitioner, who is a hearing impaired (Person with Disability.), came to be called by the office of Engineer-in-Chief, IPH Department, Himachal Pradesh, vide communication dated 15.02.2008 (Annexure P-1) for interview to the post of Clerk on contract basis. Careful perusal of aforesaid communication reveals that the post of Clerk, qua which petitioner was called for interview, was to be filled up from the category of Persons with D isabilities. Subsequently, as per Regularisation Policy ofr the Government of Himachal Pradesh, petitioner was regularised by Superintending Engineer, IPH Circle Nahan, vide office order dated 01.06.2015, after completion of requisiteC number of years on contract basis.

3. In the year 2015, petitioner filed OA No.3476 of 2015, titled as Deepak Gupta Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Others gbefore the erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal (for ishort, ‘the Tribunal’), seeking therein direction to respondents to give him appointment on regular basis from the date of his initial appointment on account of his being disabled. Afore case filed by the petitioner was disposed of by the Tribunal vide order dated 24.09.2015 (Annexure P-3) with the direction to respondents to consider and decide the case of the petitioner in terms of judgment passed by this Court in CWP No.811 of 2011, however, fact remains that representation having been filed by the petitioner, pursuant to directions contained in afore order, was rejected by the res.pondents vide order dated 14.10.2016 (Annexure P-4). Similarly situate person, namely Dila Ram, who in terms of memorandum dated 24.04.2008, was appointed against the post of Clerk against 3% quota for physically disabled persons on contract basis, approached the Tribunal by way of Original Application, which, on account of abolishment of the Tribunal, cam e to be transferred to this Court and was registered as CWPOrA No.5077 of 2020, praying therein for following reliefs:

“i) oThat the impugned office order dated 25.03.2017 (Annexure A6)

may kindly be quashed and set aside.

Cii) That the respondents may kindly be directed to grant regular appointment to the applicant as Clerk from the date of his initial appointment/joining with all consequential benefits such as; arrears of pay/salary w.e.f. 24.04.2008 to 25.05.2015 alongwith interest @ 9%

hper annum, pay fixation and seniority etc.”

4. In afore case, petitioner set up a case that in terms of Section 33 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, HProtection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (for short, ‘the Act’), he ought to have been given appointment against the post of C