Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Himachal Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 35485 (HP)

LAL BAHADUR v. STATE OF HP AND ORS

EX.P./2051/2025 · 2025-10-29

Jyotsna Rewal Dua

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Ex. Pet. No.2040 of 2025 alongwith connected matters Decided on: 29th October, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. Ex. Pet. No.2040 of 2025 Maili …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2. Ex. Pet. No.2041 of 2025 Lucky …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3. Ex. Pet. No.2042 of 2025 Budhi Maya …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4. Ex. Pet. No.2043 of 2025 Bahadur Singh (Bhadar) …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5. Ex. Pet. No.2044 of 2025 Mohan …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 6. Ex. Pet. No.2045 of 2025 Kalpna …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7. Ex. Pet. No.2046 of 2025 Gorimaya …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 8. Ex. Pet. No.2047 of 2025 Kanchhi …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9. Ex. Pet. No.2048 of 2025 Chamba …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 10. Ex. Pet. No.2049 of 2025 Tara Devi …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 11. Ex. Pet. No.2050 of 2025 Railman …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3 12. Ex. Pet. No.2051 of 2025 Lal Bahadur …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioners: Mr. Bonit Thakur, Advocate vice Mr. A.K. Gupta, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Vishwadeep Sharma, Additional Advocate General. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Mr. Vishwadeep Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents. 2. Learned Additional Advocate General has placed on record copies of separate office orders passed by the competent authority of the respondent-Public Works Department, conferring work charge status upon the respective petitioners retrospectively on notional basis on completion of their 08 years of daily wage service. Learned Additional Advocate General submits that wherever pay fixation has not been done by the respondents, the same 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 4 shall also be carried out within four weeks from today based upon the aforesaid office orders. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner(s) submits that in view of the office orders now passed by the respondents, the present execution petitions be closed, however, liberty be reserved to the petitioners to seek appropriate remedy for the redressal of their surviving grievances, if any, in accordance with law. In view of the office orders placed on record by the respondents and the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner(s), the present execution petitions are disposed of with liberty as prayed for. Jyotsna Rewal Dua October 29, 2025 Judge Mukesh