IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No.1143 of 2017 Decided on: 27.05.2026 _________________________________________________________________ State of HP and Ors ....Petitioners Versus Pawan Kumar . …Respondent _________________________________________________________________ Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua 1 Whether approved for reporting? _________________________________________________________________ For the petitioners: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, with Mr. Y.P.S.Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General. For the respondents: Mr. A.K.Gupta, Advocate. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge State has assailed the award dated 29.04.2016 passed by the learned Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Shimla, whereby claim preferred filed by the respondent, herein, was allowed as under:- “Relief. As a sequel to my above discussion and findings on issues no.1 to 3, the claim of the petitioner succeeds and is hereby partly allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be reinstated in service forthwith with seniority and continuity from the date when he raised 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes - 2 - the demand notice i.e w.e.f. 3.9.2007. However, the petitioner is not entitled to back wages and as such the reference is ordered to be answered in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent. Let a copy of this award be sent to the appropriate government for publication in official gazette. File, after completion, be consigned to records.” 2. Learned Additional Advocate General has placed on record an office letter dated 16.07.2025 from the Director of Agriculture, Himachal Pradesh, addressed to the petitioner- State with contents as under:- “Sabject:- CMA No. 2119/2024 as Pawan Kumar Vs. State of HP &Ors. Memo, In compliance to the order passed by Ld. Court of Civil Judge, Court No.-4. Shimla, Distt. Shimla, H.P. on 05.06.2025, it is to inform you that the Department has already reinstated you on the same post from the date i.e. 03.09.2007 mentioned by the Ld. Court of Industrial Dispute cum-Labour Court Shimla in its order dated 05.06.2025 subject to outcome of CWP No. 1143/2017.” 3. Learned counsel for the respondent, submitted that in terms of the award, respondent had been ordered to be reinstated in service with seniority and continuity with effect from the date when he raised the demand notice i.e. 03.09.2007, respondent was though not held entitled to the - 3 - back wages. Since the State in terms of office letter dated 16.07.2025 has reinstated the respondent on the same post w.e.f. 03.09.2007 that is, in terms of the award impugned in the present writ petition, respondent shall be satisfied in case the writ petition instituted by the State is disposed of by taking note of respondent’s reinstatement by the State under office letter dated 16.07.2025, with liberty reserved to the respondent to seek appropriate remedy for the redressal of his grievances in accordance with law concerning his regularization. This is not objected by learned Additional Advocate General. 4. Having regard to above submissions and in view of office letter dated 16.07.2025, this writ petition is disposed of having been rendered infructuous. Liberty, however, is reserved to the respondent to seek appropriate remedy for the redressal of his grievances in accordance with law concerning regularization of his services. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also to stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge May 27, 2026 R.Atal