Dismissed¶20

State of Hp and Others v. Narayan Dutt and Another

Himachal Pradesh HC11 Mar 2026CMP.M/127/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Condonation of delay refused; time-barred State appeal against direction to consider Class-III daily-wage employees' representation for counting of daily wage service towards qualifying service for pension and pensionary benefits dismissed as misconceived, impugned order held totally innocuous; relies on LPA No.106 of 2026 State of H.P. v. Pawna Devi and notes dismissal of SLP (C) No(s).1007/2024 (State of H.P. v. Roop Lal); Himachal Pradesh High Court; CMP(M) No.127 of 2025; decided 11.03.2026.

What did the court decide?

Filing of such appeals by the State is misconceived where the State had only been asked to decide the representation on the basis of the law laid down by this Court and thereafter upheld by the Apex Court. ¶20

State of Hp and Others Vs Narayan Dutt and Another — Himachal Pradesh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶3

CMP(M) No.127 of 2025 Date of Decision : 11.03.2026

¶4

State of Himachal Pradesh and others

¶5

…… Applicants/ Appellants

¶6

Versus

¶7

Narayan Dutt and another …… Respondents

¶8

Coram:

¶9

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge

¶10

Whether approved for reporting?¹

¶11

For the Applicants : Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Varun Chandel, Additional Advocate General.

¶12

For the Respondents : Nemo.

¶13

G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice (oral)

¶14

The present time barred appeal of 157 days is filed against the judgment of learned Single Judge, in Civil Writ Petition No.8138 of 2025 along with connected matters, decided 20.05.2025, whereby, directions were issued for consideration of the representation of the petitioners who were Class-III employees seeking counting of their daily wage service towards qualifying service for the purpose of pension and pensionary benefits.

¶15

Relief was being claimed on the basis of the judgment

¶16

passed by the Co-ordinate Bench, in LPA No.196/2022 , decided on

¶17

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

¶18

¶19

11.10.2023, appeal wherefrom had been dismissed in Special Leave Petition (C) No(s).1007/2024 , titled The State of Himachal Pradesh and others vs. Roop Lal . Inspite of that, the present appeal has been preferred.

¶20

In similar circumstance, we have already dismissed LPA No.106 of 2026 , titled State of H.P. and others vs. Pawna Devi as the State could not justify the filing of the appeal and did not press the matter on 05.03.2026. Simlarly, in Pawna Devi’s case (supra) , we held that filing of such appeals are misconceived as the State had only been asked to decide the said representation on the basis of the law laid down by this Court and thereafter upheld by the Apex Court. Resultantly, for the same reasons, we also dismiss the present application for condonation of delay as well as the appeal, as the impugned order is totally innocuous.

¶21

Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

¶22

( G.S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice

¶23

( Bipin Chander Negi) March 11, 2026 (KS) Judge

State of Hp and Others v. Narayan Dutt and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Hp and Others v. Narayan Dutt and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State of Hp and Others Vs Raju Ram and Another

State of Hp and Others Vs Parul Sharma

Hpsebl Vs M/S Vardhman Ispat Udyog

Union of India Vs Surinder Kumar

Hrtc Vs Balwant Singh

Kamal Bahadur Vs the State of Hp and Others