Dismissed¶11

Hpseb Ltd. v. Sahil Kumar and Others

Himachal Pradesh HC6 May 2026RP/84/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

HPSEBL Review Petition; ‘no work no pay’ principle; exemption from payment for non-worked period; reliance on Union of India & Ors. v. K.V. Jankiraman & Ors., (1991) 4 SCC 109; RP No. 84 of 2025; High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla; decision dated 06.05.2026; Vivek Singh Thakur, J. (Oral) with Ranjan Sharma, J.; Review Petition dismissed; miscellaneous application(s) disposed.

What did the court decide?

The “no work no pay” principle was duly considered in the judgment under review, taking into consideration Union of India & Ors. vs. K.V. Jankiraman & Ors., (1991) 4 SCC 109, whereby the same issue was already discussed and decided in detail; consequently, no merit is found in the Review Petition. ¶11

Hpseb Ltd. Vs Sahil Kumar and Others — Himachal Pradesh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

RP No. 84 of 2025 Date of decision: 06.05.2026

¶3

HPSEB Ltd. …Petitioner Versus Sahil Kumar & Ors. …Respondents. Coram

¶4

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge.

¶5

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge.

¶6

Whether approved for reporting?

¶7

*For the Petitioner:*	*Ms. Sunita Sharma, Senior Advocate,* *with Mr. Dhananjay Sharma, Advocate.*
*For the Respondents*:	*Ms. Shagun Sharma, Advocate, for* *respondent No.1.*

¶8

Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge (Oral)

¶9

Learned counsel for the petitioner–HPSEBL submits that the Review Petition has been filed, being necessitated on the limited ground that, on the basis of the “no work no pay” principle, the period for which the respondent has not worked, the respondent–HPSEBL be exempted from making payment for that period.

¶10

¶11

We have gone through the judgment, wherein the said principle has been duly considered and taking into consideration the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India & Ors. vs. K.V. Jankiraman & Ors. , (1991) 4 SCC 109 , the same issue has already been discussed and decided in detail. Therefore, no merit is found in the present Review Petition and, accordingly, the Review Petition stands dismissed.

¶12

Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

¶13

(Vivek Singh Thakur), Judge.

¶14

06^th May, 2026 (Shamsh Tabrez)

¶15

(Ranjan Sharma), Judge.

Hpseb Ltd. v. Sahil Kumar and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hpseb Ltd. v. Sahil Kumar and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Reeta Devi Vs the State of Hp and Others

M/S Radha Krishan Industries Vs the UOI and Others

Kusum Kumari Vs the State of Hp and Another

Anil Kumar Vs State of Hp

State of Hp Vs Shashi Kant

Daleep Singh Vs the State of Hp and Others