IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.17922 of 2025 Date of Decision : 26.02.2026 Union of India and another …… Petitioners Versus Khem Raj Verma and another …… Respondents Coram:

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioners : Mr. Balram Sharma, Deputy Solicitor General of India.

For the Respondents : Mr. Sajeev Bhushan, Senior Advocate with g Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate.

G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice (Oral)

The challenge in the present writ petition is against the order dated 09.07.2020, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal Chandigarh Bench (Circuit Bench) at Shimla, whereby, the order passed by the present petitioners dated 13.07.2015 rejecting their claim for regularization was set aside. Directions were issued that once the posts of MTS are available in the Institution, it cannot be said that the respondents cannot be adjusted against them and further if they cannot

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

not regularized, at least they can be considered against them for fresh appointment prospectively, while noting the fact that the said employees, as such, had been working between 1999-2004, on contract basis.

2. The Union of India, as such, was satisfied with the said order and chose not to agitate it for all these long years. It was only when subsequent order dated 07.08.2025 was passed in a miscellaneous application by noting that earlier order had not been complied with, in letter and spirit and fresh directionts were issued, the present writ petition has been preferred. In such circumstances, it is only re-iteration of earlier view, as such, finally inter se the parties.

3. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that challenge to the earlier order, which has become final, at such a belated stage, would not be m aintainable. The second order, as such, was only by way of execution petition and, therefore, it cannot give the Union of India a fresh cause of action, as such, to contest their case on merits.

4. In similar circumstances, present petitioners had also filed CWP No.6810 of 2025 titled Indian Institute of Advanced Studies vs. Dr. S.K. Goel and another dated 23.07.2025, wherein, there was a delay of more than two years in filing the writ petition and we have dismissed the said writ petition keeping in view the law laid down in CWP No.2522 of 2025, titled Union of India and others vs. Pawna Devi, dated 25.02.2025 that the writ petition filed after a gap of two years from the decision of the Tribunal would not be liable to be entertained since vested rights, as such, accrued in favour of the litigant. Relevant portion of the judgment passed in Pawna Devi’s case (supra) reads as under:-

“4. We are of the considered opinion that though there is no period prescribed for filing the writ petitions which challenge the orders of the Tribunal while invoking the power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, but the Union of India cannot be permiftted free play, as such to challenge the said orders at its own whims and fancies after a period of over two years in all these set of cases. The parties to the litigation have developed a vested right as such after the orrders have come in force in their favour and for theu Union of India as such to file these writ petitions after the delay as mentioned above, cannot as such be countenanced in the absence of any justifiable reasons.

5 to 7……..

8. Thus, we can safely hold that there is deliberate hinaction and lack of bonafide by the Union of India which amounts to gross negligence and the Union of India cannot take advantage of an order passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court whereby, the right to challenge the orders of H the Armed Forces Tribunal has been cemented by noticing that constitutional provisions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be curtailed.

9 to 10………

11. In service matters, the Hon’ble