STATE OF HP AND OTHERS v. Narayan Dutt AND ANOTHER
CMP.M/127/2026 · 2026-03-11
Bipin Chander Negi, Gurmeet Singh Sandhawalia
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 2705 (HP) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 2705 (HP) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMP(M) No.127 of 2025 Date of Decision : 11.03.2026
State of Himachal Pradesh and others …… Applicants/ Appellants Versus
Narayan Dutt and another …… Respondents
Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge
Whether approved for reporting?1
For the Applicants : Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Varun Chandel, Additional Advocate General.
For the Respondents : Nemo.
G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice
(oral)
The present time barred appeal of 157 days is filed against the judgment of learned Single Judge, in Civil Writ Petition No.8138 of 2025 along with connected matters, decided 20.05.2025, whereby, directions were issued for consideration of the representation of the petitioners who were Class-III employees seeking counting of their daily wage service towards qualifying service for the purpose of pension and pensionary benefits.
2. Relief was being claimed on the basis of the judgment passed by the Co-ordinate Bench, in LPA No.196/2022, decided on 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2 11.10.2023, appeal wherefrom had been dismissed in Special Leave Petition (C) No(s).1007/2024, titled The State of Himachal Pradesh and others vs. Roop Lal. Inspite of that, the present appeal has been preferred.
3. In similar circumstance, we have already dismissed LPA No.106 of 2026, titled State of H.P. and others vs. Pawna Devi as the State could not justify the filing of the appeal and did not press the matter on 05.03.2026. Simlarly, in Pawna Devi’s case (supra), we held that filing of such appeals are misconceived as the State had only been asked to decide the said representation on the basis of the law laid down by this Court and thereafter upheld by the Apex Court. Resultantly, for the same reasons, we also dismiss the present application for condonation of delay as well as the appeal, as the impugned order is totally innocuous.
4. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
( G.S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice ( Bipin Chander Negi) March 11, 2026 (KS) Judge