1 2026:HHC:36590 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA COPC No. 805 of 2026 Decided on: 27.08.2026 ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hanumant …..Petitioner Versus Devesh Kumar and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Hamender Singh Chandel, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General for respondents No. 1 & 2. Mr. Mukul Sood, Advocate, for respondent No.3. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Petitioner alleges breach of the directions issued in Hanumant versus State of H.P. & Ors.2 The said order reads as under:- “Notice. Mr. B.N. Sharma, Ld. Addl. Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents. 2. The petitioner was initially engaged on a contract basis as Clerk in the respondent No. 3/Corporation on 05.11.1998. The services of the petitioner were regularized on 21.04.2007. The sole contention raised by the petitioner is based on the judgment passed in SLP (Civil) No. 10399/2020, titled State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. Vs. Sheela Devi, decided on 07.08.2023. 3. In Sheela Devi’s case, the husband of Sheela Devi was engaged on contract basis in a temporary capacity in the year 1999. The services of the husband of Sheela Devi were regularized in the year 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2CWP No.10214/2024, decided on 17.09.2024. 2 2026:HHC:36590 2009. In the aforesaid facts and attending circumstances, it was held by the Court that the husband of Sheela Devi was entitled for counting of service rendered prior to regularization for the purpose of qualifying service. 4. From a perusal of the impugned order dated 03.07.2024 (Annexure P-9), it is evident that the aforesaid issue has not been considered in the adjudication so rendered. Both the parties agree that the aforesaid issue is conspicuous by absence. 5. In view thereof, the impugned order 03.07.2024 (Annexure P-9) is quashed. Respondent No. 2 is directed to decide the case of the petitioner afresh in terms of Sheela Devi’s Case supra, within a period of four weeks from today. 6. It is an admitted position that the petitioner has been subjected to three rounds of litigation already. If, in case the petitioner is forced to unnecessary litigation, then the concerned authorities shall be liable to pay costs on account of unnecessary litigation to which the petitioner will be subjected. In view of the above terms, present petition stands disposed of, so also, pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. ” 2. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 has placed on record copy of the decision rendered in Municipal Corporation Shimla Versus Besar Lal3. The said Letters Patent Appeal was instituted against Besar Lal Vs. State of H.P. and Ors.4, which in turn, was based upon Sheela Devi Vs. State of H.P. and Others5, which is the same case that is relied upon in Hanumant2 as well. The decision rendered in Municipal Corporation Shimla Versus Besar Lal3 is as under:- “The present appeal is barred by one year and 201 days delay. 2. The directions passed in CWP No. 9865 of 2024, titled as Besar Lal Vs. State of H.P. and Ors, 3CMP(M) No.812/2026, decided on 07.08.2026. 4CWP No.9865 of 2024, decided on 12.09.2024. 5CWPOA No.195/2019, decided on 26.12.2019. 3 2026:HHC:36590 decided on 12.09.2024, are sought to be assailed, whereby the learned Single Judge found that the matter was covered by the judgment passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CWPOA No. 195 of 2019, titled as Sheela Devi Vs. State of H.P. and Others, on 26.12.2019. Resultantly, directions had been issued by learned Single Judge to decide the case in terms of the said judgment while quashing the order dated 03.07.2024. 3. It is not disputed that the similar set of appeals have already been dismissed by this Court in LPA No. 268 of 2026, titled as Municipal Corporation, Shimla Vs. Jagdish Kumar and Ors., decided on 08.05.2026 and followed by the judgment in LPA No. 302 of 2026, titled as Municipal Corporation, Shimla Vs. Raksha Bhota and others, dated 15.05.2026. 4. Accordingly, for the reasons given in the said appeals, we also dismiss the present appeal. 5. It is open to the appellant, as such, to comply with the directions within a period of two months from today, as it is pointed out that Execution Petitions/Contempt Petitions have been filed by the employees in the connected matters, accordingly, learned Single Judge will take into consideration this order while dealing with such proceedings. 6. Accordingly, the application seeking condonation of delay is also dismissed and resultantly, the appeal also meets the same fate. 7. Pending application(s) if any, also stands disposed of accordingly.” 3. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 submits that the judgment in question shall be implemented in the case of the petitioner within the timelines indicated by the Hon’ble Division Bench in Municipal Corporation Shimla Versus Besar Lal3. In view of above submissions and keeping in view the observations made by the Hon’ble Division Bench in Municipal Corporation Shimla Versus Besar Lal3, the present contempt proceedings are closed at this stage. 4 2026:HHC:36590 Notices issued to the respondents are discharged. It shall be open for the petitioner to seek appropriate remedy in accordance with law for the redressal of his surviving grievances, if any, at an appropriate stage, in case need so arises in future. It is, however, hoped and expected that the respondents, in particular respondents No.2 & 3, shall implement the judgment in question within the timelines indicated in Municipal Corporation Shimla Versus Besar Lal3 in the case of the petitioner as well. Jyotsna Rewal Dua August 27, 2026 Judge yogesh