1 2026:HHC:23705 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.7820/2023 Decided on:22.06.2026 Pushkar Raj and another …..Petitioners Versus State of H.P and others ..Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioners: Mr. Ajay Sharma, Senior Advocate with Mr. Atharv Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. L.N. Sharma, Additional Advocate General with Mr. Rajat Choudhry, Assistant Advocate General for respondents No. 1 to 4. Mr. Mukul Sood and Mr. Het Ram Thakur, Advocates, for respondents No. 3 & 4. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Heard learned counsel for both the sides and considered the case file as also the record produced by respondents No. 3 & 4. 2. S/Shri Padam Dev son of Ganga Ram, Desh Raj Kaushal son of Pohlo Ram and Hari Ram son of Chandu Ram instituted Padam Dev and others versus State of H.P and others2. The case set up by the petitioners therein was that: 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2CWP No.1444/1993, decided on 26.04.1994. 2 2026:HHC:23705  They had been performing duties and functions of Pujaris in respondent- Temple. Administration of temple had been taken over by the State under the provisions of the Himachal Pradesh Hindu Public Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act, 1984 ( in short, the Act);  In the matter of appointment of Pujaris, the State had been ignoring the claim of the petitioners as hereditary Pujaris. State could not over-look the claim of the petitioners as hereditary Pujaris. The petitioners therein asserted that though the temple had been brought under the provisions of the Act but their rights as hereditary Pujaris could not be interfered with or taken way. They had the right to continue to perform functions of Pujaris. Respondent- State opposed the claim. It’s defence was that after the termination of non-occupancy tenancies of forefather of the petitioners, the State was competent to appoint non-hereditary Pujaris under Section 18(1) of the Act. The case set up by the aforesaid three petitioners who are predecessor-in-interest of the present 3 2026:HHC:23705 petitioners, was noticed in Padam Dev and others2 as under:- “In this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed that respondents No. 1 and 2 should not appoint non-hereditary Pujaris over-looking their claims as hereditary Pujaris. The petitioners claimed that they were performing the duties and functions of Pujaris in the concerned temple and that the administration of the temple was also taken over under the provisions of the Himachal Pradesh Hindu Public Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act, 1994. In connection with the take over, objections were invited and the petitioners put forward certain objections, but nevertheless the notification was issued resulting in the inclusion of temples in the list in Schedule-I of the Act. The petitioners claimed that though the temples might have been brought under the provisions of the act, yet, their rights as hereditary Pujaris, cannot be interfered with or taken away, by appointment of the non-hereditary Pujaris claiming that the petitioners are the hereditary Pujaris and have also a right to continue to perform the functions of Pujaris, the petitioners prayed for the reliefs set out earlier. In the reply filed by the respondents, after referring to the proceedings with reference to the notification of institution under the provisions of the Act, it was stated that the claim of the petitioners as hereditary Pujaris cannot be accepted because of the termination of non- occupancy tenancies of their forefathers and that it was perfectly competent for the Commissioner to appoint the non-hereditary Pujaris under Section 18(1) of the H.P. Hindu Public Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act, 1984.” The writ petition was disposed of on 26.04.1994 with directions to the petitioners to submit their representations to the Commissioner (Temple) 4 2026:HHC:23705 setting out their claims as hereditary Pujaris with further direction to the Commissioner to decide the said claim by passing appropriate order within the timeline indicated therein. During the interregnum period of three months, the aforesaid petitioners were permitted to perform their duties and functions as Pujaris in the temple. The operative part of the order reads as under:- “We have carefully considered the contents of the writ petition and also the reply filed by the respondents and we find that on the facts and circumstances of this case, there has been no consideration by the Commissioner of the claims of the petitioners as hereditary Pujaris. Merely, on the application of the provisions of the H.P. Hindu Public Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act, 1984, the rights of the hereditary Pujaris cannot be done away with. Under Section 18(1) of the Act, the Commissioner is empowered to appoint non-hereditary trustee or Pujari and not otherwise. A careful consideration of the record, as it is, shows that the commissioner had not discharged the duties under Section 18(1) of the Act at all and the proposal to appoint non- hereditary Pujari without even ascertaining whether the petitioners or others, would be hereditary Pujaris, cannot be, therefore, sustained. The petitioners are directed to submit a representation to the Commissioner setting out their claims to hereditary Pujaris’ rights within one month from today and on receipt of such representation, the Commissioner is directed to consider the same in the light of Section 18(1) of the H.P. Hindu Public Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act, 1984, and pass appropriate orders within two months thereafter. During the period of three months aforesaid, the petitioners will be permitted to perform their duties 5 2026:HHC:23705 and functions as Pujaris in the concerned temple. The writ petition is disposed of on the lines indicated above.” 3. Pursuant to the above directions, the respondents permitted the petitioners in Padam Dev and others,2 to perform their duties and functions as Pujaris. The Commissioner (Temple) also proceeded to decide the representation of above petitioners. Respondents No. 3 & 4 have produced the record. ‘Zimni’ order dated 23.08.1994 passed in the aforesaid proceedings is as under (Translation as supplied by learned counsel for respondents No.3 & 4):- “23.08.1994 Called out. Shri Desh Raj and Padam Dev are present alongwith their Advocate Shri Vijay Thakur. The prayer of the applicants regarding their appointment as Pujari in Temple Trust Shah Talai is accepted. A detailed order is attached with the file. Sd/- Commissioner, Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur, H.P.” In terms of above ‘zimni’ order, representation of the petitioners therein was accepted and decided in their favour. The zimni order was passed in presence of S/ Sh. Desh Raj, Padam Dev and their counsel Sh.Vijay Thakur. The order also stated that a separate detailed order had also been passed on representation. The separate detailed order passed on the same day i.e. 6 2026:HHC:23705 23.08.1994, however, rejected the representatists/ petitioners’ claim of hereditary Pujaris. As per the detailed order, though the representatists/ petitioners in Padam Dev and others2 were to be employed as Pujaris on the terms and conditions proposed by the Chairman of the Temple but they were not to be treated as hereditary Pujaris. 4. The three petitioners named above continued to serve as Pujaris in the temple till their respective retirements on 31.03.2014, 31.12.2022 & 31.05.2010. During hearing of the case, it was apprised that after the retirement of petitioners No. 1 & 3, petitioner No.2 continued to serve as sole pujari and that it was in the year 2025 that respondent-Temple Trust took a decision to outsource services of Pujaris. The present petitioners who are successors-in- interest of petitioners in Padam Dev and others2, instituted Pushkar Raj and another versus State of H.P and others3 with the grievance that they have made repeated representations to respondents seeking engagement as Pujaris against the vacant post of hereditary Pujaris in the respondent-Temple but no 3CWP No.3383/2023, decided on 31.05.2023. 7 2026:HHC:23705 decision on the representations had been conveyed to them. Taking note of grievance raised by the petitioners, the aforesaid writ petition was disposed of on 31.05.2023 in view of statement made for the respondent Temple that the representations in question shall be decided within four weeks. The said order reads as under:- “Heard both sides. 2. The grievance of the petitioners in this writ petition is that they have made representations dated 02.01.2023 (Annexure P-10) and 03.04.2023 (Annexure P-11), to the 3rd respondent for engagement as Pujari against the vacant post of hereditary Pujaris available in Temple Baba Balak Nath, Shah Talai and that the 3rd respondent has not taken any decision thereon till date. 3. Learned instructing Counsel for respondents No. 3 and 4 states that the 3rd respondent shall decide the said representations within a period of four weeks and communicate its decision to the petitioners. 4. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of in terms of the above statement of learned instructing Counsel for respondents No. 3,4 & 5. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly. “ Pursuant to above order, respondent–Deputy Commissioner-cum-Commissioner, respondent- Temple Trust passed an order on 13.09.2023 rejecting the petitioners’ representations primarily on the ground that present petitioners were drawing their claim of being hereditary Pujaris on the analogy of the claim set up by 8 2026:HHC:23705 their predecessors whereas claim of present petitioners’ predecessors had already been turned down vide order dated 23.08.1994. Therefore, the claim having already been turned down, the representations were liable to be rejected, the same were accordingly rejected. The order dated 23.08.1994 passed by the respondent-Temple Trust rejecting the claim of predecessors-in-interest of the petitioners for appointment as hereditary Pujaris in the temple cannot be held against the petitioners. The record produced by the respondents does not reflect that copies of aforesaid order had been supplied to the petitioners in Padam Dev and others2 or that the aforesaid order was communicated to the petitioners therein in any manner. Rather as noticed above, separate zimni order passed by respondents on 23.08.1994 was to the effect that claim of the petitioners (therein) had been accepted. The claim of the petitioners (therein) was to appoint them as hereditary Pujaris. The ground urged by the present petitioners that all along the present petitioners and their predecessors-in- interest (petitioners in Padam Dev and others2) were under the bonafide belief that they were continuing as Pujaris on the strength of their hereditary 9 2026:HHC:23705 claim, cannot be disbelieved or brushed aside in the given facts. It has to be given due credence in view of the record produced. The detailed order dated 23.08.1994, therefore, cannot be taken against the petitioners for deciding their representations highlighting facts, evidence and documents to strengthen their claim of being hereditary Pujaris in the temple. For the aforesaid reason alone, the impugned order dated 13.09.2023 passed by respondents rejecting the representations of present petitioners on the strength of previous order dated 23.08.1994, is quashed and set- aside. Respondent No.3/Competent Authority is directed to consider the case of the petitioners for their engagement in respondent- temple as hereditary Pujaris afresh in accordance with law without being influenced in any manner by order dated 23.08.1994. This entire exercise be carried out within a period of four weeks after giving due opportunity of hearing to all the stake holders including the present petitioners. By way of abundant caution, it is clarified that this order shall remained confined only for adjudicating the instant petition; The Competent Authority shall consider & decide the main matter (petitioners’ representation) on its own merits in 10 2026:HHC:23705 accordance with law. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua June 22, 2026 Judge yogesh