Dismissed¶24

Ramesh Kumar Dehal v. Baba Balak Nath Temple Trust and Ors.

Himachal Pradesh HC18 Apr 2026CWP/7282/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Ramesh Kumar Dehal v. Baba Balak Nath Temple Trust; CWP No.7282 of 2021; High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla; Justice Ajay Mohan Goel; decided 18.04.2026; COVID-19 pandemic; Sector Officer deputation; Mela duty; Baba Balak Nath Temple, Deotsidh; Lecturer; additional emoluments; remuneration for extra work; mandamus; Annexure P-4; Annexure P-5; office orders dated 15/07/2021 and 16/07/2021; no extra pay for pandemic deputation; petition dismissed as misconceived; pending miscellaneous applications disposed of.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner is not entitled to the relief prayed for, i.e., remuneration/additional emoluments for performing Mela/Sector Officer duties during the COVID-19 pandemic; the petition qua that relief is misconceived. ¶20

Ramesh Kumar Dehal Vs Baba Balak Nath Temple Trust and Ors. — Himachal Pradesh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶24

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, an employee (Lecturer) of Baba Balak Nath Temple Trust who was deputed as Sector Officer (Mela duty) at the temple during the COVID-19 pandemic, is entitled to additional emoluments/remuneration for the work performed, by way of a mandamus.

¶14

Court's answer

¶20

Ratio / Principle

There is no case of differential treatment: it is not the petitioner's case that other Lecturers deputed under Annexure P-4 were paid extra remuneration while he alone was denied it.

¶20

Key takeaways

Nothing under Annexure P-4 was promised to the petitioner which was not ultimately paid to him.ratio¶20
As an employee of Baba Balak Nath Temple, Deotsidh, the petitioner was called upon by the employer, along with other Lecturers, to act as Sector Officer in view of the rush of devotees during the extraordinary situation of the COVID-19 pandemic; the deputation was a precautionary measure by the Temple Trust to check the spread of the pandemic and ensure COVID-appropriate behaviour, not work attracting extra payment.ratio¶23

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

CWP No.7282 of 2021 — Ramesh Kumar Dehal v. Baba Balak Nath Temple Trust and others (High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla; Ajay Mohan Goel, J.; decided 18.04.2026): The petitioner, an employee (Lecturer) of Baba Balak Nath Temple Trust, was deputed in terms of Annexure P-4, on account of the COVID-19 pandemic, along with other Lecturers as Sector Officer at Baba Balak Nath Temple, Deotsidh from 17.07.2021 to 18.07.2021 and thereafter on Saturdays and Sundays till further orders, to ensure COVID-appropriate behaviour amid the rush of devotees. The petition originally sought restraint against extraction of non-teaching work (Mela duty) and quashing of office orders dated 15/07/2021 and 16/07/2021 (Annexures P-4 and P-5); those reliefs were forgone as infructuous after the petitioner's retirement, leaving a claim for a mandamus to indemnify him for unpaid additional emoluments for the work extracted. Held, dismissing the petition as misconceived: the petitioner is not entitled to such remuneration — he asserts no differential treatment vis-à-vis the other deputed Lecturers, nothing under Annexure P-4 was promised but left unpaid, and the deputation was a precautionary measure taken by the employer Temple Trust in the extraordinary situation of the pandemic to check its spread. Pending miscellaneous applications disposed of accordingly.

¶1

2026:HHC:12482-DB

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶3

CWP No.7282 of 2021

¶4

Decided on: 18.04.2026

¶5

Ramesh Kumar Dehal … Petitioner Versus Baba Balak Nath Temple Trust and others … Respondents

¶6

Coram

¶7

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?¹ Yes

¶8

____________________________________________________ _ For the petitioner: Mr. Shekhar Badola, Advocate, vice Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Avneesh Bhardwaj, Advocate.

¶9

Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral)

¶10

By way of this petition, the petitioner has, inter alia ,

¶11

prayed for the following reliefs:-

¶12

“i) That the respondents may kindly be restrained from extracting the works other than that of teaching from the petitioner alike Mela duty in Baba Balak Nath Temple etc.

¶13

(ii) That the office order dated 15/07/2021 at annexure P-4 and office order dated 16/07/2021 at annexure P-5 may kindly be quashed and set aside.”

¶14

When the case was taken up for consideration, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is forgoing Reliefs No.1 and 2, as they have been rendered infructuous with the passage of time as the petitioner has retired. Learned Counsel submits that as the petitioner was called upon to perform Mela Duties by the Baba Balak Nath Temple Trust and because the petitioner has not been paid any additional emoluments for the work

¶15

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

¶16

¶17

2026:HHC:12482-DB

¶18

extracted from him, a mandamus be issued to the respondents to indemnify the petitioner for the same. He confined the arguments qua this relief only.

¶19

A perusal of the pleadings demonstrates that on account of COVID-19 Pandemic, in terms of Annexure P-4, the petitioner was deputed alongwith other Lecturers as Sector Officer at Baba Balak Nath Temple, Deotsidh, from 17.07.2021 to 18.07.2021 and, thereafter, on every forthcoming Saturday and Sunday till further orders. In addition to the petitioner and Lecturers mentioned in Annexure P-4, Naib Tehsildar Bhota, Tehsildar Dhatwal and Naib Tehsildar Barsar were also deputed to ensure appropriate COVID behaviour during Saturdays and Sundays w.e.f. 17.07.2021. For this work performed by the petitioner, he is seeking remuneration.

¶20

This Court is of the considered view that the petitioner is not entitled for the relief being prayed for by him. It is not his case that in terms of Annexure P-4, other Lecturers deputed were paid extra remuneration, whereas the petitioner was denied the same. Obviously, as COVID-19 Pandemic was an extraordinary situation and the petitioner happened to be an employee of Baba Balak Nath Temple, Deotsidh, he alongwith Lecturers were called upon by the employer to act as Sector Officers at the Baba Balak Nath Temple, Deotsidh in view of the rush of the devotees, more so on Saturdays and Sundays. It is not as if in terms of Annexure P-4, anything was promised to the petitioner which was not ultimately paid to him. The

¶21

¶22

2026:HHC:12482-DB

¶23

petitioner was not called upon to perform the duties in a marriage ceremony or in a picnic. He was called upon was to act as a Sector Officer at Baba Balak Nath Temple, Deotsidh alongwith other Lecturers in view of the COVID-19 Pandemic, which obviously was a precautionary measure taken by the Temple Trust to check the onspread of COVID-19 Pandemic, so as to ensure COVID appropriate behaviour.

¶24

Therefore, as the petition qua the said relief is completely misconceived, the same is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any also stand disposed of accordingly.

¶25

(Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge

¶26

April 18, 2026 (Rishi)

Ramesh Kumar Dehal v. Baba Balak Nath Temple Trust and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramesh Kumar Dehal v. Baba Balak Nath Temple Trust and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sunita Devi Vs the State of Hp and Others

Kamal Kishore Vs the State of Hp and Others

Vijay Kumar Vs the State of Hp and Others

Subhash Chander Bhardwaj Vs State Bank of India

Nirmala Devi Vs State of Hp and Ors.

Om Parkash Dhiman Vs State of Hp