IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 17131/2026 Decided on: 29.09.2026 Devi Singh & Ors. …Petitioners Versus HPSEBL & Ors. .…Respondents. ……………………………………………………………………………. Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioners: Mr. Kul Bhushan Khajuria, Advocate. For the respondents: Ms. Sunita Sharma, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Manisha Kumari, for respondent Nos.1 & 2. Mr. Ankit Kaloti, Advocate, for respondent No.3. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J The petitioners, 7-in-number, are aggrieved by the discontinuation of their services at Hydro Electric Project Saach, Pangi, District Chamba, w.e.f. 30.06.2026. They seek directions to respondents No. 1 & 2 to permit them to continue to work on the same/equivalent work for which they had allegedly been rendering services prior to 30.06.2026. 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes 2 2. The case set up by the petitioners is that respondent No. 3-HIMURJA had undertaken the construction of a hydroelectric power plant at Saach, District Chamba, in the year 2010. The manpower at the plant was deployed through one Shri K.S. Thakur, A-Class Government Contractor. An agreement was executed between HIMURJA and aforesaid Shri K.S. Thakur for supply of manpower for the operation and maintenance of Saach (900 KW) MHEP in Pangi Valley of Chamba Hydroelectric Power Project. The agreement was executed on 29.11.2017, which has also been placed on record as Annexure P-2. According to the petitioners, the aforesaid contractor had employed 32 employees for the smooth functioning of the hydroelectric power project, including the petitioners, in the year 2010. Maintenance of the power project was handed over by HIMURJA to respondents No. 1 and 2, on 18.06.2026. Respondent No. 2 terminated the services of the contractor with a direction to hand over the power plant to respondent No. 2. It is the grievance of the petitioners that after the termination of the earlier contractor, namely, Shri Kesar Singh Thakur, Contractor, respondents No. 1 and 2 engaged a new contractor and, thereafter, also terminated the services of the petitioners with effect from 30.06.2026. 3 Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have been working in the hydroelectric power project for the last about 15 years and have been expecting regularization of their services. Instead of regularizing their services, the respondents have terminated their services. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, and on perusal of the case file, I do not find it to be a case for exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. It is the pleaded case of the petitioners that their services were engaged by the contractor. There was an agreement between HIMURJA and the contractor for supply of manpower, which is placed on record by the petitioners themselves. There is no document on record to reflect the petitioners having been appointed or working directly under the supervision of HIMURJA or the other State authorities. In case, petitioners’ case is that they are workmen, the aforesaid will also require to be established & proved by them in accordance with law before the appropriate forum. Relief in the nature claimed by them, in the given facts & circumstances, cannot be granted to them in this writ petition. It is for the petitioners to avail appropriate remedy, in accordance with law, for redressal of their grievance. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. 4 Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge 29th September, 2026(rohit)