( 2026:HHC:10180 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA LPA No.162 of 2026 Date of Decision:- 25.03.2026 Hindustan Salts Limited and another ....Appellants Versus Rishi Kant Sharma and another ....Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellants : Mr. Narender Singh Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Neeraj Sharma, Senior Advocate with Mr. Hemant Kumar Thakur and Mr. Vidush Chauhan, Advocates. G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice (Oral). Caveat No.130 of 2026 1. Mr. Hemant Kumar Thakur, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent-Caveator. Accordingly, the Caveat stands discharged. 2. The petition stands disposed off accordingly. LPA No.162 of 2026 3. The present appeal is directed against the interim order dated 17.02.2026, passed by the learned Single Judge in 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 CWP No.1887 of 2026, titled Rishi Kant Sharma Vs. Union of India & Others, whereby the learned Single Judge had stayed the implementation of order dated 13.02.2026 (Annexure P-7), whereby the services of the employee as such were dispensed with during the probation period by pointing out that there were flaws in the recruitment process. 4. The learned Single Judge has given valid reasons for granting the stay of the implementation order dated 13.02.2026 which was ordered to be kept in abeyance while noting that the employee has been working with them from 07.01.2017. 5. The perusal of the offer of appointment order dated 08.12.2022 (Annexure P-5) would go on to show that he had applied for the post of Senior Manager (Civil) but due to his qualification, the appellant-Company itself had offerred him the post of Assistant Manager (Civil) being a deserving candidate. 6. In such cirucmstances, we are of the considered opinion that it does not lie in the mouth as such of the appellant- Company now prima facie to justify the termination order. Even, otherwise, it is not disputed that the reply has been filed in the main case and even the application for vacation of stay has been preferred and the matter now is listed before the learned Single Judge for the said purpose. 3 7. We have serious doubts about the mantianability of the appeal arising out of the interim order in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Midnapore People’s Cooperative Bank Ltd. Vs. Chunilal Nanda and Others, (2006) 5 SCC 399. 8. In such circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that there is no such occasion as such to interfere in the well reasoned order dated 17.02.2026, passed by the learned Single judge at this stage. Needless to say that any observations made today are only expression of opinion for decision of the present appeal and the learned Single Judge shall not be biased by the said observations and shall proceed to decide the said application in accordance with law. 9. Resultantly, we dismiss the present appeal, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. (G.S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice (Bipin Chander Negi) Judge 25th March, 2026 (Munish Thakur)