( 2026:HHC:34223 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 5671/2022 Decided on: 14.08.2026 Deepanwita Halder …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. .....Respondents ………………………………………………………………………………… Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner: Ms. Sana Hakim, Advocate (Via V.C.) and Ms. Reeta Hingmang and Ms. Srishti Chauhan, Advocates. For the respondents: Ms. Seema Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, for the respondents-State. Mr. Neeraj Gupta, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Pranjal Munjal, Advocate, for respondents No.7 & 8. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J. This writ petition has been filed for the grant of following substantive reliefs: - “(A) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus directing Respondents no.1 to 5 to carrying out inspection and take necessary action under the Sexual Harassment of Women at workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 against Respondent no. 5, 6, 7 and 8 for not complying with the provisions under Sexual Harassment of Women at workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013. 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 ( 2026:HHC:34223 B) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to quash and set aside the inquiry proceedings of Respondent No. 6 under Sexual Harassment of Women at workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 as well as the undated final inquiry report which is Annexure-P 11 given by Respondent no.6 and adopted erroneously by respondent no 4 and 5, as the same is bad in law and is initiated without jurisdiction and hence declare the same null and void-ab- initio. (C) This Hon'ble Court be to direct the Respondent no.7 and 8 to pay Rs. 50000 each to the Petitioner due to the non-compliance of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, to Registrar Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013. (D) That the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue Writ of Mandamus directing the Respondents No. 1 to 8 to compensate the Petitioner by way of damages of 1,60,69,032 (Rupees one crore sixty lakhs sixty nine thousand and thirty two only/-) in lieu of the mental and emotional torture and harassment caused to her due to behaviour, conduct, approach meted out to the petitioner by the Respondents and also for additional mental, emotional and economical losses incurred upon by the petitioner due to the non- compliance of Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 on behalf of all the respondents.” 2. Heard & considered the case file. 2(i) The petitioner joined respondent No. 8- Vaidya Bhupendra Rotary Women and Child Care Hospital, run by respondent No. 7- Palampur Rotary Eye Foundation, as a professional consultant gynaecologist on contractual basis on 03.07.2019. Accommodation within the hospital premises was provided to the petitioner. Petitioner's 3 ( 2026:HHC:34223 service contract period was extended from time to time, and finally, under office letter dated 31.07.2021, up to 31.07.2022. 2(ii) In terms of the service contract entered into between the petitioner and the contesting respondents, either party could terminate the contract before the expiry of the stipulated period from the date of joining, or the extended period, as the case may be, by giving 90 days' notice or by paying an amount equivalent to 90 days' salary in lieu of notice. During the subsistence of the contract period, the petitioner tendered her resignation to the respondents on 06.01.2022, indicating the effective date of her resignation/last working day as 05.02.2022: - “I hereby tender my resignation from the position of Gynae & Obs consultant. Please consider this letter as a, one month notice to resign from my post effective from my today 06.01.2022. My last working day would be 05.02.2022. Kindly accept my resignation and relive me of my duties. Thank you for the opportunities given to me in this organization.” The respondents/management did not consider the aforesaid resignation of the petitioner to be in consonance with the provisions of the service contract executed between the parties. According to them, 90 days' advance notice was required to be given, or an equivalent salary for 90 days was to be paid in lieu of notice upon termination of the contract. This was pointed out by the respondents to 4 ( 2026:HHC:34223 the petitioner in their office letter dated 25.01.2022. According to the respondents, petitioner's resignation could only take effect from 05.04.2022, i.e., after the expiry of the 90-day period. 2(iii) It appears that disputes arose soon thereafter between the contesting parties. According to the contesting respondents, the petitioner did not join her duties after 25.01.2022, which adversely affected the services in the hospital. The petitioner was called upon vide office letter dated 28.01.2022 to comply with the terms of the contract. Disputes depended further when the petitioner allegedly took away articles from the accommodation allotted to her on 30.01.2022. A complaint was also made by the petitioner to the police, registered as General Diary Entry No. 25 on 30.01.2022. The contesting respondents also lodged a complaint with the Station House Officer (SHO), Palampur, on 03.02.2022 regarding alleged misbehaviour and threats extended by the petitioner to the hospital staff. Respondents served a show-cause notice upon the petitioner on 31.01.2022. Petitioner filed her reply to the show-cause notice on 01.02.2022, inter alia, levelling allegations of sexual harassment at the workplace. 2(iv) Keeping in view the nature of allegations levelled in the reply, respondents Nos. 7 and 8 referred petitioner’s reply/complaint to the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) for inquiry. The petitioner duly participated in the proceedings undertaken by the ICC. An objection was also raised by her regarding the constitution of the ICC, along with 5 ( 2026:HHC:34223 a request to change its member. The said request was allowed, and specific member was changed. The inquiry was conducted, and the report was furnished on 05.05.2022. It appears that the petitioner simultaneously complained to the Local Committee (LC) with the same allegations as contained in her reply to the show-cause notice. This complaint was made to the Directorate of Women and Child Welfare, Himachal Pradesh, which was then forwarded to the Local Committee. The Local Committee independently inquired into the allegations levelled by the petitioner after associating with her. A report was furnished by the Local Committee on 05.03.2022. Both reports i.e., the one furnished by the ICC and the other by the LC did not favour the petitioner. 2(v) Feeling aggrieved, petitioner instituted Deepanwita Halder Vs. Palampur Rotary Eye Foundation & Ors.2 in this Court, inter alia, seeking directions to declare the findings in the inquiry report dated 05.05.2022 submitted by the ICC as illegal and void ab initio. Prayer was also made to set aside the proceedings of the ICC, and compensation was claimed. The matter appeared before the Hon’ble Division Bench on 12.04.2023, and by the following order, at the request made by the petitioner, the writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn to enable her to avail appropriate remedies available under the law: - 2 CWP No. 998/2023 decided 12.04.2023 6 ( 2026:HHC:34223 “Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that she may be permitted to withdraw the petition to enable the petitioner to avail other appropriate remedy available to her as per law. Ordered accordingly.” 2(vi) Instead of availing the alternate remedy, petitioner instituted Deepanwita Halder Vs. Palampur Rotary Eye Foundation & Ors3, seeking directions to the respondents to notify the concerned court entitled to hear the appeal under Section 18 of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013. Reply was filed by the respondents to the aforesaid writ petition. In terms of the reply, learned Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court had been notified as the appellate authority under Section 2(a) of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946, via notification issued on 31.08.1978, where the petitioner could prefer an appeal under Section 18 of the Act. Accordingly, the writ petition was disposed of as under, reserving liberty to the petitioner to avail alternate remedy before the competent forum for the redressal of her grievances: - “This writ petition has been filed for the grant of following substantive reliefs: - “(a) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ/order in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ/order directing the Respondent to notify the courts which are entitled to hear the appeals u/s 18 of the Sexual Harassment of 3 CWP No. 10175/2023 decided on 12.03.2026 7 ( 2026:HHC:34223 Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 ("Act"). (b) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to order Respondent to compensate the petitioner with Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Only) for the mental, emotional and financial trauma faced by the petitioner due to non- of existence of the courts to hear the appeals u/s 18 of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 ("Act") and non-compliance of the act. (c) This Hon'ble Court be pleased award costs of the present writ petition that this Hon'ble Court deems fit to be granted. (d) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to condone the period of limitation for filing of appeal by the petitioner under section 18 of Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 ("Act").” 2. Respondents have filed the reply. As per the reply:- learned Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court has been notified as Appellate Authority under Section 2(a) of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 under notification issued on 31.08.1978 (Annexure R-1); That the petitioner can prefer an appeal under Section 18 of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 and the Rules framed thereunder to the learned Industrial-cum-Labour Court against the recommendations of Internal Complaints Committee. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the information supplied by the respondents in their reply, the petitioner shall avail appropriate recourse for the redressal of her grievances. 4. Taking note of the aforesaid reply and the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner, the present petition is disposed of. It shall be open for the petitioner to avail appropriate remedy before the competent forum for the redressal of her grievances. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.” 8 ( 2026:HHC:34223 3. By the time of the institution of the instant writ petition, the ICC as well as the LC had furnished their respective reports. During pendency of this writ petition, the petitioner had also instituted the aforesaid two writ petitions in relation to these reports. Both writ petitions were disposed of, reserving liberty to the petitioner to avail an alternate remedy, which she has admittedly not availed till date. 4. In view of the reports of the Internal Complaints Committee and Local Committee having been furnished in the interregnum (which went against the petitioner), and taking into consideration the two writ petitions instituted by the petitioner during the pendency of the present writ petition along with the orders passed therein, the reliefs in the nature claimed in the instant petition cannot be granted to her. This writ petition, therefore, fails and is dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge 14th August, 2026 (rohit)