Dismissed¶13

Maya Devi v. State of Hp and Others

Himachal Pradesh HC20 Apr 2026CWP/228/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Maya Devi v. State of H.P. & Ors.; CWP No. 228 of 2020; High Court of Himachal Pradesh Shimla; Jiya Lal Bhardwaj J. (Oral); decided 20.04.2026; office order 20.03.2026 Commissioner Municipal Corporation Solan; work charge status from 01.04.2002; regularization w.e.f. 23.07.2007; petition dismissed as not pressed; consequential benefits to be released within eight weeks; interest @ 6% per annum on arrears till payment; pending applications disposed; 2026:HHC:12485.

What did the court decide?

Though dismissed as not pressed, the petitioner obtained a direction that all consequential benefits, if any, be released in her favour within eight weeks, failing which the respondents must pay interest @ 6% per annum on the arrears from the date of the judgment until payment; pending applications, if any, stand disposed of accordingly. ¶13

Maya Devi Vs State of Hp and Others — Himachal Pradesh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶13

Issue for consideration

Entitlement of the petitioner to consequential benefits flowing from conferment of work charge status from 01.04.2002 and regularization of services w.e.f. 23.07.2007 as recorded in the office order dated 20.03.2026.

¶13

Court's answer

It was made clear that all consequential benefits, if any, shall be released in favour of the petitioner within eight weeks.

¶13

Ratio / Principle

In view of the office order dated 20.03.2026 recording work charge status from 01.04.2002 and regularization w.e.f. 23.07.2007, the petitioner did not wish to press the present petition, and the Court dismissed it as not pressed.

¶13

Key takeaways

If the consequential benefits are not released within eight weeks, the respondents shall pay interest @ 6% per annum on the arrears from the date of this judgment till payment.ratio¶13

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

CWP No. 228 of 2020 (2026:HHC:12485), Maya Devi v. State of H.P. & Ors., High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla; decided 20.04.2026 by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj (oral judgment). At the hearing, counsel for respondent No.3 produced an office order dated 20.03.2026 of the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Solan (H.P.), taken on record, which showed conferment of work charge status on the petitioner from 01.04.2002 and regularization of services w.e.f. 23.07.2007. On these facts the petitioner elected not to press the petition, which was accordingly dismissed as not pressed. Notwithstanding dismissal, the Court directed that all consequential benefits be released in favour of the petitioner within eight weeks, and that if not so released, the respondents shall pay interest @ 6% per annum on the arrears from that day until payment. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of accordingly. No statutory provision or precedent was cited or engaged with in the judgment.

¶1

( 2026:HHC:12485 )

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA

¶3

CWP No. 228 of 2020.

¶4

Decided on : 20 th April, 2026.

¶5

Maya Devi		...Pet	itioner.
Versus
State of H.P. & Ors.	...	.Respo	ndents.
*Coram:*
*The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Jiya Lal Bhar*	*dwaj, Judge.*
Whether approved for reporting?¹
For the Petitioner: Mr. Gup	Bonit, Advocate, ta, Advocate.	vice	Mr. A.K.
For the respondents: Mr. for	Rupinder Singh T respondents No.1,2	hakur, and 4.	Addl. A.G.,
Mr. res	Varun Rana, pondent No.3.	Advo	cate, for

¶6

Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge (Oral).

¶7

Mr. Varun Rana, learned counsel for respondent No.3 has produced a copy of office order dated 20.03.2026, issued by the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Solan (H.P.), which is taken on record.

¶8

A perusal of office order reveals that the petitioner has been conferred with work charge status from 01.04.2002 and thereafter

¶9

his services have been regularized w.e.f. 23.07.2007.

¶10

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

¶11

…2… ( 2026:HHC:12485 )

¶12

In view of the aforesaid facts, the petitioner does not want to press the present petition.

¶13

Resultantly, the present petition is dismissed as not pressed. However, it is made clear that all the consequential benefits be released in favour of the petitioner within eight weeks from today, if any. In case, the benefits are not released in favour of the petitioner within eight weeks, the respondents shall pay interest @ 6% per annum on the arrears from today till its payment. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.

¶14

(Jiya Lal Bhardwaj) Judge

¶15

20^th April, 2026. (jai)

Maya Devi v. State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Maya Devi v. 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

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hem Raj and Ors. Vs State of H.P

Onkar Singh Vs State of Hp

Ashwani Kumar and others Vs State of Hp and others

Sanjeev Mohd. Vs State of Hp

Jagat Ram Vs State of Hp

Narender Kumar Vs Mahesh Sharma