2025:HHC:42949 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.19540 of 2025 Decided on: 11th December, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Bir Singh …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Surender Sharma and Mr. Neeraj Sharma, Advocates. For the Respondents: Mr. Sikander Bhushan, Deputy Advocate General. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Mr. Sikander Bhushan, learned Deputy Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents. 2. Looking to the documents on record, grievance of the petitioner and the nature of order being passed hereinafter, reply of the writ petition is not required to be called for from the respondents. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard at this stage. 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 2025:HHC:42949 3. H.P.P.W.D. Electrical Class III Employees Association Versus The State of H.P. and others2 was preferred claiming following substantive reliefs:- “ii) That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue writ in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondents to treat the members of the Petitioner Association, viz, the employees who have joined the respondent No.1 Department in 1985 and subsequent years as Electrician on daily waged basis in the Highly Skilled Category, as having been appointed to the post of Electrician Gr. I, with effect from the date of their regularization after completion of requisite tenure on daily waged basis, with all consequential benefits, including the pay scale i.e Rs.4020-6200 attached to the said post. iii) That up-to-date arrears of salary in respect of each of the members of the Petitioner Association found to be entitled to be granted appointment as Electrician Gr.1 be paid to them, calculated with effect from the date of regularization of the employee, along with interest thereupon.” The writ petition was disposed of on 16.11.2012 with following operative directions:- “4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the case of the petitioner is covered by a judgment passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in CWP No. 8891 of 2010 along with CWP No. 8897 of 2010-J titled Naresh Chand Versus State of Himachal Pradesh, decided on September 11, 2012. It is submitted that the petitioner is similarly placed as the petitioner in that case. He also relied upon the decision in CWP(T) No. 9624 of 2008 (OA No.2565/2003), titled Dinesh Nandan Versus State of H.P. & Others, decided on July 5, 2010, the said decision was also followed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in CWP No. 8891 of 2010 along with CWP No. 8897 of 2010-J titled as Naresh Chand Versus State of Himachal Pradesh, decided on September 11, 2012. It is submitted that the petitioner is covered by 2 CWP No.3468 of 2009, decided on 16.11.2012 3 2025:HHC:42949 the judgment passed by this Court. Accordingly, the same relief is being granted in favour of the petitioner as granted in the above two cases and the respondents are directed to take all consequential action within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this Judgment.” The respondents-State assailed the above decision by filing State of H.P. & ors. Versus HPPWD Electrical Class-III Employees Association3, which was decided as under:- “Having perused the impugned judgment, we are clearly of the view that unless the satisfaction was recorded by the learned Writ Court, no positive directions could have been passed to direct the respondents-State to grant the same favour, as was granted by this Court while adjudicating CWP No.8891 of 2010 alongwith CWP No.8897 of 2010 titled Naresh Chand Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, decided on 11th September, 2012 as well as CWP(T) No.9624 of 2008 (OA No.2565 of 2003) titled Dinesh Nandan Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & ors., decided on 5th July, 2010. 2. Another anomaly, which is apparent on the face of the record of the case, is that the petitioner have not given the details of the writ petitioners, i.e., respondent herein and also not given the details of the persons, who formed part of the Association and on whose and for whose benefit, the petition has been filed. 3. In the given facts and circumstances, we deem it appropriate to dispose of this appeal by directing the respondent-Association to give the details of each of the members of its Association that had espoused the cause by filing writ petition before this Court within a period of four weeks from today. On receipt of such representation within the stipulated time, the appellants-State is directed to consider and decide the same in light of the judgments mentioned above by passing a speaking order within six weeks. Needless to 3 LPA No.21 of 2015, decided on 09.12.2024 4 2025:HHC:42949 say that in case the member(s) of the Association not more than three in number is desirous to appear personally, then they shall be afforded opportunity of hearing before passing any order. 4. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.” In the above decision, Hon’ble Division Bench directed the respondent-Association to give the details of its members that had espoused the cause by filing the writ petition, within four weeks to the State authorities. On receipt of such representation within the stipulated time, the State was directed to consider and decide the same in light of the decisions mentioned in the judgment by passing a speaking order within the given timeframe. Petitioner filed his detailed representation on 26.12.2024 (Annexure P-9), pointing out therein that he was also a member of the association and pursuant to the above order in HPPWD Electrical Class-III Employees Association3, was furnishing his separate representation for decision of the respondents. Instead of deciding petitioner’s representation by passing a speaking order, the respondents declined to take cognizance of the same under office letter dated 30.01.2025 (Annexure P-10) on the ground of same having not been routed through proper channel. 5 2025:HHC:42949 4. Returning of petitioner’s representation was not justified in the given facts when the respondents-State had been directed in HPPWD Electrical Class-III Employees Association3 to decide the same by passing a speaking order. No order much less any speaking order was passed by the respondents, save and except returning the representation of the petitioner on the ground of it having not been filed through proper channel. In view of above, respondents/competent authority, in particular respondent No.2, is directed to comply with the directions issued in HPPWD Electrical Class-III Employees Association3 and to decide the aforesaid representation of the petitioner dated 26.12.2024 (Annexure P-9) afresh by passing a speaking order within a period of six weeks from today. The decision so arrived at shall also be communicated to the petitioner. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua December 11, 2025 Judge Mukesh