1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.3585/2026 a/w connected matters Decided on: 24.03.2026 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. CWP No. 3585/2026 The Executive Engineer, JSV Division, Palampur, Distt. Kangra …..Petitioner Versus Shambhu Ram .....Respondent 2. CWP No.3588/2026 The Executive Engineer, JSV Division, Palampur, Distt. Kangra …..Petitioner Versus Om Prakash .....Respondent 3. CWP No.3589/2026 The Executive Engineer, JSV Division, Palampur, Distt. Kangra …..Petitioner Versus Subhash Chand .....Respondent 4. CWP No.3592/2026 The Executive Engineer, JSV Division, Palampur, Distt. Kangra …..Petitioner Versus Manmohan Singh .....Respondent 5. CWP No.3593/2026 The Executive Engineer, JSV Division, Palampur, Distt. Kangra …..Petitioner Versus Prakash Chand .....Respondent 2 6. CWP No.3594/2026 The Executive Engineer, JSV Division, Palampur, Distt. Kangra …..Petitioner Versus Chandu Ram .....Respondent -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Additional Advocates General. For the Respondents: Nemo. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Petitioners-State feels aggrieved against orders (Annexure P-1) in all the writ petitions passed by the Deputy Labour Commissioner-cum-Appellate Authority, Himachal Pradesh under Section 7(7) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, ordering payment of gratuity in favour of the respondents in terms thereof. 2. Learned Deputy Advocate General submits that facts of these cases are almost similar to the facts of State of H.P. & Ors. Versus Binu Ram2, which, in turn, was based upon Bindumati Versus State of H.P. and others3. 1 Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 CWP No.15443/2024, decided on 24.02.2026 3 CWP No.4632/2025, decided on 07.11.2025 3 Decision in Bindumati3 is stated to have been accepted and implemented by the respondents therein. Learned Deputy Advocate General further submits that the issue of law involved in the instant cases is the same as was involved in Binu Ram2 & Bindumati3 and further that the same is covered against the petitioners-State under the aforesaid decisions. Accordingly, on the analogy of the decisions in Binu Ram2 & Bindumati3 and following the reasoning therein, these writ petitions are dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua March 24, 2026 Judge rohit