( 2025:HHC:17897 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. LPA No.179 of 2025 Decided on: 2nd January, 2026 Srishti Pal Vasudeva and another .......Appellants versus Narsingh Dutt and others ...Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S.Sandhawalia, Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the appellants: Mr.Bimal Gupta, Senior Advocate with Ms.Kusum Chaudhary, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr.C.N. Singh and Mr.Anshul Gandhi, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr.Arsh Rattan, Deputy Advocate General for respondents No.2 to 4. G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice (Oral) The present Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the order of costs of Rs.1,00,000/- imposed by the learned Single Judge, which was on account of the fact that the workman was forced to litigate for his grievances since the year 2010 and different pleas were taken by the respondents to reject his claim. 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. ( 2025:HHC:17897 ) 2 2. The present appeal has thus been filed by appellant No.1 who had retired from service on 30.09.2016 from the post of Principal CCF (HoFF) and appellant No.2 is stated to be working as a Divisional Forest Officer. 3. It has been brought to our notice that when appellant No.1 as such had passed the order dated 17.12.2005 (Annexure A-5), there was nothing to demonstrate from the file that the earlier orders have been passed by him, giving benefits to similarly situated persons and there was no contradiction as such since the earlier order passed in the year 2011 was not by him. 4. Regarding appellant No.2, the issue was only whether he had passed the order dated 04.09.2020 complying with the directions issued on 01.11.2017 by the Tribunal, and whether there were justifiable reasons as such to deny the relief having been highlighted on account of the fact that there was pendency of Hero Devi’s case and the SLP, which had been dismissed on 29.03.2019 was only against the interim order. Similarly, he has also relied upon the judgment passed in CWP No.1894 of 2016 titled State of H.P and others vs. Bhaskar Ram’s case which was pending and finally decided lateron on13.04.2023. ( 2025:HHC:17897 ) 3 5. In such circumstances, reasons have been given to distinguish the case of the employees. It is another matter that the learned Single Judge had though granted the said relief, which is not subject matter of challenge by the retired employees, who are only aggrieved against the imposition of costs. 6. In such circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that appellants have made out a case as such for deletion of the costs aspect. Resultantly, we allow the present appeal to that limited extent. 7. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. ( G.S. Sandhawalia ) Chief Justice ( Jiya Lal Bhardwaj ) January 02, 2026 Judge (naveen)