LAWS(HPH)-2025-11-15

ASHOK KUMAR Vs. STATE OF H.P.

Decided On November 07, 2025
ASHOK KUMAR Appellant
V/S
STATE OF H.P. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Through instant petition, challenge has been laid to order dtd. 4/7/2022 passed by Commissioner Temple Chintpurni-cum-Deputy Commissioner, Una, District Una, Himachal Pradesh, whereby representation having been filed by the petitioners for regularization, in terms of order dtd. 6/5/2022 passed by Division Bench of this Court in Review Petition No.137 of 2021, titled as Ashok Kumar & Ors. Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors., came to be rejected.

(2.) Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the pleadings adduced on record by the petitioners are that petitioners have been serving in Mata Chintpurni Temple as Langar Sevadars, Mandir Sevadars and Electricians for the last 15 to 16 years, but yet their request for regularization was not considered on one pretext or the other. Though representations made by the petitioners were forwarded to office of Commissioner (Temple), Chintpurni by the Temple Officer, but since no action was taken upon the same, petitioners filed CWP No.3925 of 2019, which was dismissed, vide judgment dtd. 22/9/2021 (Annexure P-3) on the premise that services of a Sevadar are gratuitous in nature. Though petitioners filed Review Petition No.137 of 2021, but same was dismissed. However, Division Bench of this Court permitted petitioners to file representation for redressal of their grievance with a direction to the respondents to decide the same, uninfluenced by the earlier order(s), more particularly, the order passed in CWP No.3925 of 2019.

(3.) In the afore background, petitioners submitted a representation dtd. 11/5/2022 to the Deputy Commissioner-cum-Commissioner, Mata Shree Chintpurni-Temple Trust, Una, District Una, Himachal Pradesh (Annexure P-4), but the afore authority, vide impugned order dtd. 4/7/2022, rejected the same on the ground that petitioners were neither temporary nor casual employees, as such, their prayer for regularization cannot be accepted. In the afore background, petitioners have approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein for the following main reliefs:-