IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA LPA No.17 of 2026 Date of Decision : 25.02.2026 Ashok Kumar and others …… Appellants Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Others …… 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 Appellants : Mr. Ajay Sharma, Senior Advocate with Mr. Karan Sharma, Advocate.

For the Respondents : Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Pranay Pratap Singh, Additional Advocate h General, for respondents No.1 to 4/State.

Mr. Rajesh Kashyap, Advocate, for respondent No.5.

G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice (Oral)

The present Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the order dated 07.11.2025 of learned Single Judge, passed in CWP No.6947 of 2022, whereby, the writ petition filed by the petitioners was dismissed, in which, they were seeking the relief of regularization against the respondent-Trust. The reason which weighed in the mind of learned Single Judge, while upholding the order dated 04.07.2022 (Annexure P-8), passed by the Commissioner Temple Chintpurni-cum-Deputy Commissioner, Una, respondent No.3 was that there was nothing on

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

record to suggest that the petitioners were ever given appointment by the Officer of the Temple Trust, except one Kuldeep Chand. The factum of appointment of Kuldeep Chand also had been denied by the Temple Trust on the ground that the payment had been made to a different person namely Kuldeep Chand, who is not petitioner/appellant No.2, herein.

2. Reliance upon the similarly situated persons granted benefit, as such, in Jagdish Chand’s case was distinguished by the learned Single Judge on the ground that the satid persons had been relieved from the duties and had thereafter been re-engaged on account of the award of Labour Court and, whereas, there is nothing on record in the present case that the present persons were appointed by the Temple Trust.

3. Keeping in view the fact that there was absence of relationsh ip between employer-employee, the benefit has been declined and we do not find any plausible reason to take a different view once the fact itself is disputed and it would not be possible as such to grant regularization to a set of persons/appellants who were never even employees of the Trust.

4. It is pertinent to note that in the first round of litigation, petitioners had approached this Court by filing a petition being CWP No.3925 of 2019, praying that directions be issued to enter the names of the petitioners as Sewadars in the attendance register and to regularize the services, which was dismissed on 22.09.2021. The Co-Ordinate Bench, as such, had come to the conclusion that the petitioners were volunteers to such services being Sewadars and the plea that they had been engaged since 2002-03 was not accepted and it was rather held that the documents accompanying the petition indicate that the petitioners had been working off and on gratuitously and therefore, they were not entitled for the said relief.

5. However, petitioners got a new lease of life on account of filing of a review petition being Review Petition No.37 of 2021, whereby, vide order dated 06.05.2022, permission was given to file representation and to be decided in a time bountd manner while disposing of the same keeping in view the earlier observations made in CWP No.4657 of 2014, decided on 18.07.2014 which pertained to award of the Labour Court which was the case of the engagement of labourers on daily wage basis and the matter as such had been submitted for consideration before the Labour C ourt titled as Jagdish Chand and others vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, as mentioned earlier. The Co-ordinate Bench, however, had given liberty as such that representation would be decided uninfluenced by the earlier orders, passed on 22.09.2021.

6. Apparently, on that basis, the representation then was decided by passing