The High Court dismissed an Letters Patent Appeal challenging a Single Judge order that curtailed monitory benefits for a reinstated daily wage Chowkidar to three years due to laches, noting the prior dismissal of a review petition on the same grounds.
The instant appeal was dismissed. No order as to costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
| LPA No. |
: 330 of 2024 | |
|---|---|---|
| Decided on | : 13.11.2024 | |
| Sh. Hari Singh. | ...…Appellant. | |
| Versus | ||
| State of Himachal Pradesh and | Ors. | …Respondents. |
Coram
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Acting Chief Justice Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No
| For the appellant | : Mr. Nishant Khidtta, Advocate, |
|---|---|
| vice Mr. V.D. Khidtta, Advocate. | |
| For the respondents | : Mr. Pranay Pratap Singh, Additional Advocate General. |
Satyen Vaidya, Judge (Oral)
Heard.
assailed the judgment dated 29.02.2024, passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP No. 8655 of 2023 to the extent the claim of
the petitioner for grant of actual monitory benefits has been
1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2
Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:11414 )
restricted to a period of three years prior to filing of CWP No. 8655 of 2023.
“Since I have held under issue no.1 above that the termination of services of the petitioner by the respondents without following with the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is not proper and justified, hence the petitioner is held entitled to reinstatement in service alongwith seniority and continuity from the date of his illegal termination. However the petitioner is not entitled to back wages as he has not place any material on record to substantiate that he was not gainfully employed after his termination. Accordingly, issue no.2 is decided in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent. As a sequel to my above discussion and findings on issue No.1 to 3, the claim of the petitioner succeeds and is hereby allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be reinstated in service forthwith with seniority and continuity from the date of his illegal retrenchment i.e. w.e.f. 16.6.2004. However, the petitioner is not entitled to back wages as he has not placed any material on
3
Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:11414 )
record to substantiate that he was not gainfully employed after his termination and as such the reference is ordered to be answered in affirmative. Let a copy of this award be sent to the appropriate government for publication in official gazette. File, after completion, be consigned to records.”
The appellant was re-engaged on 20.07.2009 in compliance to the aforesaid award.
4
Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:11414 )
5
Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:11414 )
17 of 2024 has not been assailed by the appellant and thus, the said
order has attained finality.
same, is accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs.
stand disposed of.
(Tarlok Singh Chauhan) Acting Chief Justice
(Satyen Vaidya) 13th November, 2024 Judge
6
Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:11414 )
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court was right in restricting the monitory benefits to a period of three years prior to filing the Writ Petition due to laches and inasmuch as the claim had been reviewed and dismiss
Whether the appellant is entitled to further relief given the finality of the review petition order?
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Hari Singh
State of Himachal Pradesh
Tarlok Singh Chauhan
Satyen Vaidya
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
