YASHWANT SINGH CHAUHAN v. THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF HP
CWP/3750/2026 · 2026-07-07
Bipin Chander Negi, Gurmeet Singh Sandhawalia
body2026
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 14944 (HP) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 14944 (HP) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
2026:HHC:27302 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No. 3750 of 2026 Date of decision: 07.07.2026 Yashwant Singh Chauhan …Petitioner Versus The Hon’ble High Court …Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice G. S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin C. Negi, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Prem Chand Verma, Advocate. G. S. Sandhawalia
, Chief Justice (Oral)
After arguing for some time, learned counsel for the petitioner is not in a position to press the present writ petition, since by virtue of the application for placing on record additional documents on record, which would go on to show that initially he was appointed on contract basis with District & Sessions Judge, Kullu, on 12.05.2004. Thereafter, the fresh appointment took place in August, 2004 (Annexure A-3) as Judgment Writer with District & Sessions Judge, Bilaspur and thereafter, he submitted his resignation, which was accepted on 24.01.2007, since he wished to join the H.P. State Administrative Tribunal, Shimla. Prior to that, the initial appointment of the petitioner was with the Income Tax Department as Stenographer w.e.f. 16.04.1997 (Annexure P-1), which was totally a different establishment. Lastly, his appointment in this Court as Stenographer was made
2 2026:HHC:27302 on temporary basis on 21.07.2009 (Annexure A-1) and it is admitted case that now, he is working as a Secretary with this Court.
2. In such circumstances, prima facie we are of the considered opinion that neither the facts have been put together in the writ petition and only additional documents have now been placed on record and basic pleadings as such are missing to take an appropriate decision on the pleadings.
3. Faced with this situation, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he does not wish to press the present petition with liberty to file a fresh petition on the same cause of action, after giving better particulars, as the earlier period is sought to be counted for pensionary benefits.
4. In view of the above, the present petition is disposed of as not pressed, with liberty as aforesaid. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.
(G. S. Sandhawalia)
Chief Justice (Bipin C. Negi) 7th July, 2026
Judge (sanjeev)