Dismissed¶26

State of Hp and Another v. Keshav Chand

Himachal Pradesh HC1 Apr 2026CWP/4244/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Payment of Gratuity Act 1972, Section 7(7); gratuity orders of Deputy Labour Commissioner-cum-Appellate Authority, Himachal Pradesh challenged by State of H.P.; CWP Nos. 4242, 4243, 4244 of 2026; petitions dismissed following State of H.P. & Ors. v. Binu Ram (CWP No.15443/2024, 24.02.2026) and Bindumati v. State of H.P. (CWP No.4632/2025, 07.11.2025); judge Jyotsna Rewal Dua; respondents Pawan Kumar, Daulat Ram, Keshav Chand (Nemo); State counsel Y.P.S. Dhaulta (Additional Advocate General) and Rajat Chaudhary (Assistant Advocate General).

What did the court decide?

The issue of law involved in the instant cases is the same as was involved in Binu Ram and Bindumati, and the instant cases stand covered against the petitioners-State under the aforesaid decisions. ¶25

State of Hp and Another Vs Keshav Chand — Himachal Pradesh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 4242/2026 a/w connected matters Decided on: 01.04.2026

¶3

1. CWP No. 4242/2026

¶4

State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr.

¶5

…..Petitioners

¶6

Versus Pawan Kumar .....Respondent

¶7

2. CWP No.4243/2026

¶8

State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr.

¶9

…..Petitioner Versus Daulat Ram .....Respondent

¶10

3. CWP No. 4244/2026

¶11

State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr.

¶12

…..Petitioner

¶13

Versus Keshav Chand .....Respondent

¶14

Coram

¶15

Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua

¶16

Whether approved for reporting?¹

¶17

For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Additional Advocates General & Mr. Rajat Chaudhary, Assistant Advocate General.

¶18

For the Respondents: Nemo.

¶19

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge

¶20

Petitioners-State feels aggrieved against orders

¶21

(Annexure P-1) in all the writ petitions passed by the Deputy

¶22

1 Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes.

¶23

¶24

Labour Commissioner-cum-Appellate Authority, Himachal Pradesh under Section 7(7) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, ordering payment of gratuity in favour of the respondents in terms thereof.

¶25

2. It is not in dispute that the facts of these cases are almost similar to the facts of State of H.P. & Ors. Versus Binu Ram² , which, in turn, was based upon Bindumati Versus State of H.P. and others³ . Decision in Bindumati³ is stated to have been accepted and implemented by the respondents therein. That the issue of law involved in the instant cases is the same as was involved in Binu Ram² & Bindumati³ and further that the same is covered against the petitioners-State under the aforesaid decisions.

¶26

Accordingly, on the analogy of the decisions in Binu Ram² & Bindumati³ and following the reasoning therein, these writ petitions are dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.

¶27

Jyotsna Rewal Dua April 01st 2026 Judge rohit

¶28

2

¶29

2 CWP No.15443/2024, decided on 24.02.2026

¶30

3 CWP No.4632/2025, decided on 07.11.2025

State of Hp and Another v. Keshav Chand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Hp and Another v. Keshav Chand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mosam Deen Vs State of Hp and Ors.

Ranu Ram Vs Hpseb Ltd.

Tilak Raj Vs the Bar Council of India and Another

Daljeet Singh Vs Devesh Kumar and Others

Virender Singh Vs State of Hp and Anr.

State of Hp and Another Vs Daulat Ram