Disposed¶18

Abhishek Thakur v. the Hpsamb and Others

Himachal Pradesh HC20 Apr 2026CWP/8772/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Termination-of-outsource-employee writ petition disposed of as its main relief stood frustrated by re-engagement during pendency; liberty granted to file afresh on current grievances; maintainability objection left open. Keywords: CWP No. 8772 of 2025; 2026:HHC:12440; Abhishek Thakur; Himachal Pradesh State Agriculture Marketing Board Shimla; impugned letter 18.03.2025; termination order 22.03.2025; outsource basis; reengaged; intermittent terminations; posting Shimla/Hamirpur; maintainability left open; Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge; decided 20.04.2026.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to the petitioner to approach the Court afresh with regard to his present grievances, subject to the respondents' objection qua maintainability (left open); pending miscellaneous applications disposed of accordingly. ¶18

Abhishek Thakur Vs the Hpsamb and Others — Himachal Pradesh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

2026:HHC:12440

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA

¶3

CWP No. 8772 of 2025 Decided on : 20.04.2026

Abhishek Thakur

…Petitioner

Versus

Himachal Pradesh State Agriculture Marketing Board, Shimla and others

¶8

…Respondents

¶9

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

¶10

For the petitioner	: M/s Ganesh Barowalia and Naveen Kumar Dass, Advocates.
For the respondents	: Mr. Neeraj Maniktala, Advocate, vice Mr. Virender Singh Rathore, Advocate, for respondents No.1 & 3.
	Ms. Seema Kaushal Guleria, Advocate, for respondent No.2.

¶11

Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral )

¶12

By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has approached this Court praying for setting aside of impugned letter dated 18.03.2025 and termination order dated 22.03.2025, in terms whereof, the services of the petitioner

¶13

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

¶14

¶15

2026:HHC:12440

¶16

were terminated. The petitioner is stated to be engaged on outsource basis.

¶17

Learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that the petitioner is not maintainable. The Court stands informed that during the pendency of the petition, the petitioner has been reengaged. However, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the services of the petitioner are being terminated intermittently and now he has been posted at Shimla, though previously, he was posted at Hamirpur.

¶18

In light of the fact that the main relief prayed for in the writ petition stands frustrated as the petitioner has been reengaged, as prayed for, this petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to approach the Court afresh with regard to his present grievances, but this liberty is of course subject to the objection taken by the respondents qua maintainability, which issue is left open. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.

¶19

(Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge

¶20

April 20, 2026 (Shivank Thakur)

Abhishek Thakur v. the Hpsamb and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abhishek Thakur v. the Hpsamb 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

Manohar Lal Vs State Bank of India

Devi Ditta Vs State of Hp and Others

Kamla Devi Vs State of Hp and Ors.

Deepak Dewan and Others Vs the State of Hp and Others

Madho Prasad Vs State of Hp and Others

Sukh PALaged 49 years, Occupation Senior Assistant S/O Sh Yanu Ram Vs the State of Hp and Others