Pawan Patial Vs the State of Hp and Others

( 2026:HHC:849 )

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA

CWP No. 19870/2025 Decided on: 1.1.2026

Pawan Patial …..Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & ors. ….Respondents ______________________________________________________________

¶5

Coram:

¶6

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Romesh Verma, Judge.

¶7

Whether approved for reporting?¹

¶8

For the Petitioner: Mr. Sanjeev K. Suri, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Additional Advocate General, for respondents No. 1 & 2. Mr. Deepak Sharma, Advocate, for respondents No. 3 & 4.

¶9

Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge (oral)

¶10

This petition has been filed seeking following substantive reliefs:-

¶11

“a) that the respondents may kindly be directed to treat the appointment of the petitioner from the initial date of taking over the erstwhile Jawalaji Degree College, Jawalamukhi, District Kangra, H.P. i.e. with effect from

¶12

1Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.

¶13

2

¶14

( 2026:HHC:849 )

¶15

8.6.2016 along with all consequential benefits of pay fixation, arrears of salary, seniority along with 9% interest per annum.

¶16

b) that notification dated 27.8.2017 may kindly be quashed and set aside to the extent of taking over of the services of the petitioner on contract basis instead of regular basis with further direction to the respondents to treat the appointment of the petitioner on regular basis from the date of taking over of erstwhile Jawalaji Degree College, Jawalmukhi, District Kangra, H.P., by considering past service rendered by the petitioner along with all consequential benefits with 9% interest per annum.”

¶17

2 At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that relief claimed in prayer (b) had to be granted by respondents No. 3 and 4 but now he has been instructed not to press prayer (b) and, therefore, respondents No. 3 and 4 are not necessary parties to the present petition, and accordingly, he has prayed for deletion of respondents No. 3 and 4 as petitioner is not pressing prayer (b).

¶18

3 Considering the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, abandonment of prayer (b) is permitted and respondents No. 3 and 4 are deleted from array of the parties. Necessary endorsement be made in the record by Deputy Registrar (Judicial)/Registry in the memo of parties.

¶19

3 ( 2026:HHC:849 )

¶20

4 Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner would be satisfied in case respondents No. 1 and 2 are directed to consider prayer (a) of the petitioner in light of judgment dated 15.5.2025 passed in CWP No. 4813/2025, titled as Dr. Jaspal Singh Rana vs. State of H.P., which has been decided in terms of judgment dated 14.9.2023, passed in CWPOA No. 2050/2020, titled as Naveen Nishchal Sood vs. State of H.P.

¶21

5 In view of nature of the prayer made by the petitioner and the order proposed to be passed hereinafter, reply on behalf of the respondents is not necessary as no order on merit is being passed with respect to claim of the petitioner.

¶22

6 Considering the submissions on behalf of the petitioner, he is permitted to represent to the Principal Secretary (Education) to the Government of H.P. about relief claimed in prayer (a) of the petition within 7 days from today and in case the petitioner prefers such representation, the same shall be decided by the Principal Secretary (Education) to the Government of H.P., on or before 28.2.2026 by passing a reasoned and speaking order, after providing an opportunity of personal hearing, if desired so. The order so passed shall be communicated to the petitioner immediately after passing of the order.

¶23

4 ( 2026:HHC:849 )

¶24

7 Needless to say that in case grievance of the petitioner is not redressed, the petitioner shall have right to avail appropriate remedy for redressal of his grievance(s) submitted to the respondents in his representation. 8 The present petition along with pending

¶25

application(s), if any, is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

¶26

(Vivek Singh Thakur) Judge

¶27

(Romesh Verma) 1.1.2026 Judge (pankaj)

Pawan Patial v. the State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pawan Patial v. the State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Betu Ram Vs State of Hp

Bhisham Singh Vs State of Hp and Anr.

Satish Kumar Vs State of Hp

Shivam Electric Coporation Vs the UOI and Others

M/S Bindal Technopolymer (P) Ltd. Vs the State of Hp and Others

Prem Chand Vs Hrtc and Others