IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP Nos.5306 & 5308 of 2025 Decided on: 14.05.2026 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. CWP No. 5306 of 2025 Daulat Ram …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and Ors. .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2. CWP No. 5308 of 2025 Bal Krishan …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and Ors. .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioners: Mr. Aashish Kumar, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Ms. Seema Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents No.1 and 3. None for respondents No. 4 and 5. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Even though the respondents have not filed reply to the writ petitions, however, with consent of learned 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 counsel for the parties, matters have been taken up together for decision at this stage. 2. These writ petitions have been filed for grant of following common reliefs, which have been extracted from CWP No. 5306 of 2025:- “I That appropriate writ, order or direction may kindly be issued, directing the respondents to grant the employment to the petitioner in project (M/S Himachal Sorang Hydro power Pvt. Ltd.) in view of the memorandum dated 23 sep. 2004 and notification dated 11 June 2007. II. That respondent may very kindly be directed to provide Employment permanently/through project authority in the project instead of contractor, as per the memorandum dated 23 sep. 2004 and notification dated 11 June 2007. In the interest of law and justice. III. That the Respondent may kindly be directed to give preference for employment in project to adversely affected family member, as a result of the acquisition of land for the project.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the issue raised in these writ petitions, the grievance of the petitioners and the reliefs claimed for by them were 3 also involved in Surjan Kumar Vs. State of H.P. and others2 and were decided as under:- “5. Looking to the fact that the project commenced commercial operations in the year 2021, keeping in view the documents placed on record, more particularly the minutes of meetings held on 17.08.2013 & 29.12.2021 and the disputes on facts raised by the petitioners, it will be appropriate to direct respondent No.3, i.e. the Deputy Commissioner, District Kinnaur, being the Administrator of Resettlement & Rehabilitation Scheme of the project, to look into the grievances of the petitioners in accordance with law after associating all the parties concerned including the stakeholders and take appropriate call in the matter within twelve weeks from today. Ordered accordingly.” 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners would be satisfied in case these writ petitions are also disposed of in light of above directions. Learned Deputy Advocate General has no objection for considering the cases of the petitioners in terms of above directions. 5. Accordingly, without examining the merits, these writ petitions are disposed of with the order that the directions issued in Surjan Kumar2 for considering grievances of the petitioners by the concerned Deputy Commissioner in accordance with law and applicable 2 CWP No. 8972 of 2023, decided alongwith connected matters on 23.03.2026 4 policy within twelve months, shall mutatis mutandis apply to the instant writ petitions as well. Necessary action be accordingly taken. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also to stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua May 14, 2026 Judge R.Atal