Himachal Pradesh High Court
State Of Hp And Others vs Surajmani And Anr on 12 January, 2023
Bench: Amjad Ahtesham Sayed, Sabina
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA LPA No.165 of 2021 a/w connected matters .
Reserved on : 29th November, 2022 Decided on : January 12, 2023
1. LPA NO.165 OF 2021 STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... APPELLANTS VERSUS SURAJMANI AND ANR. ...... RESPONDENTS
2. CWP NO.6245 OF 2011 RAJEEV KUMAR ...... PETITIONER r VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
3. CWP NO.2097 OF 2015 RAMESH ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
4. CWP NO.1946 OF 2016 STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... PETITIONER VERSUS KHEM RAJ ...... RESPONDENT
5. CWP NO.2398 OF 2016 HPSEB LTD. AND ANOTHER ...... PETITIONERS VERSUS NANAK CHAND AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS ::: Downloaded on - 13/01/2023 20:31:50 :::CIS 2
6. CWP NO.2713 OF 2016 HPSEB LTD. AND ANOTHER ...... PETITIONERS .
VERSUS BALBIR SINGH ...... RESPONDENT
7. CWP NO.2763 OF 2016 HPSEB LTD. AND ANOTHER ...... PETITIONERS VERSUS SHARWAN KUMAR ...... RESPONDENT
8. CWP NO.2764 OF 2016 HPSEB LTD. AND ANOTHER ...... PETITIONERS VERSUS VINOD KUMAR ...... RESPONDENT
9. CWP NO.2765 OF 2016 HPSEB LTD. AND ANOTHER ...... PETITIONERS VERSUS SUBHASH CHAND ...... RESPONDENT
10. CWP NO.2766 OF 2016 HPSEB LTD. AND ANOTHER ...... PETITIONERS VERSUS SATISH KUMAR ...... RESPONDENT
11. CWP NO.2769 OF 2016 HPSEB LTD. AND ANOTHER ...... PETITIONERS VERSUS RAJESH KUMAR ...... RESPONDENTS ::: Downloaded on - 13/01/2023 20:31:50 :::CIS 3
12. CWP NO.2770 OF 2016 HPSEB LTD. AND ANOTHER ...... PETITIONERS .
VERSUS KASHMIR SINGH ...... RESPONDENT
13. CWP NO.2771 OF 2016 HPSEB LTD. AND ANOTHER ...... PETITIONERS VERSUS LEKH RAJ ...... RESPONDENT
14. CWP NO.2772 OF 2016 HPSEB LTD. AND ANOTHER ...... PETITIONERS VERSUS KASHMIR SINGH ...... RESPONDENT
15. CWP NO.2804 OF 2016 HPSEB LTD. AND ANOTHER ...... PETITIONERS VERSUS PRAKASH CHAND ...... RESPONDENTS
16. CWP NO.2806 OF 2016 HPSEB LTD. AND ANOTHER ...... PETITIONERS VERSUS VIJAY KUMAR ...... RESPONDENT
17. CWP NO.2827 of 2016 HPSEB LTD. AND ANOTHER ...... PETITIONERS VERSUS BIDHI CHAND ...... RESPONDENT ::: Downloaded on - 13/01/2023 20:31:50 :::CIS 4
18. CWP NO.2828 OF 2016 HPSEB LTD. AND ANOTHER ...... PETITIONERS .
VERSUS RAMESH CHAND ...... RESPONDENT
19. CWP NO.2871 OF 2016 HPSEB LTD. AND ANOTHER ...... PETITIONERS VERSUS JAUNFI RAM ...... RESPONDENT
20. CWP NO.2876 of 2016 HPSEB LTD. AND ANOTHER ...... PETITIONERS VERSUS KRISHAN PAL ...... RESPONDENT
21. CWP NO.2877 OF 2016 HPSEB LTD. AND ANOTHER ...... PETITIONERS VERSUS PRATAP CHAND ...... RESPONDENT
22. CWP NO.2878 OF 2016 HPSEB LTD. AND ANOTHER ...... PETITIONERS VERSUS BISHAN CHAND ...... RESPONDENT
23. CWP NO.2879 OF 2016 HPSEB LTD. AND ANOTHER ...... PETITIONERS VERSUS SUBHASH CHAND ...... RESPONDENT ::: Downloaded on - 13/01/2023 20:31:50 :::CIS 5
24. CWP NO.2880 OF 2016 HPSEB LTD. AND ANOTHER ...... PETITIONERS .
VERSUS SUSHIL KUMAR ...... RESPONDENT
25. CWP NO.2881 OF 2016 HPSEB LTD. AND ANOTHER ...... PETITIONERS VERSUS RAKESH KUMAR ...... RESPONDENT
26. CWP NO.2932 OF 2016 HPSEB LTD. AND ANOTHER ...... PETITIONERS VERSUS SURENDER SINGH ...... RESPONDENT
27. CWP NO.2973 OF 2016 HPSEB LTD. AND ANOTHER ...... PETITIONERS VERSUS VIPIN KUMAR ...... RESPONDENT
28. CWP NO.2979 OF 2016 HPSEB LTD. AND ANOTHER ...... PETITIONERS VERSUS KAMALJEET ...... RESPONDENT
29. CWP NO.3027 OF 2016 HPSEB LTD. AND ANOTHER ...... PETITIONERS VERSUS DALIP SINGH ...... RESPONDENT ::: Downloaded on - 13/01/2023 20:31:50 :::CIS 6
30. CWP NO.3042 OF 2016 STATE OF HP AND ANOTHER ...... PETITIONERS .
VERSUS VIDYA PRAKASH ...... RESPONDENT
31. CWP NO.3054 OF 2016 HPSEB LTD. AND ANOTHER ...... PETITIONERS VERSUS SUKH LAL ...... RESPONDENT
32. CWP NO.3205 OF 2016 STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... PETITIONERS VERSUS HIRA SINGH RANA AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
33. CWP NO.3301 OF 2016 HPSEB LTD. AND OTHERS ...... PETITIONERS VERSUS NAROTAM SINGH ......RESPONDENT
34. CWP NO.3304 OF 2016 HPSEB LTD. AND ANOTHER ...... PETITIONERS VERSUS TEJ SINGH ...... RESPONDENT
35. CWP NO.341 OF 2017 STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... PETITIONERS VERSUS SEWAK RAM ...... RESPONDENT ::: Downloaded on - 13/01/2023 20:31:50 :::CIS 7
36. CWP NO.414 OF 2017 STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... PETITIONERS .
VERSUS AMAR SINGH AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
37. CWP NO.614 OF 2017 STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... PETITIONERS VERSUS MANISH SHARMA ...... RESPONDENT
38. CWP NO.1136 OF 2017 STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... PETITIONERS VERSUS RAM DAYAL AND ANOTHER ......RESPONDENTS
39. CWP NO.2043 OF 2017 STATE OF HP AND ANOTHER ...... PETITIONERS VERSUS JASWANT SINGH ...... RESPONDENT
40. CWP NO.2201 OF 2017 STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... PETITIONERS VERSUS MEHAR CHAND ...... RESPONDENT
41. CWP NO.45 OF 2018 STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... PETITIONERS VERSUS JOGINDER SINGH ...... RESPONDENT ::: Downloaded on - 13/01/2023 20:31:50 :::CIS 8
42. CWP NO.590 OF 2018 STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... PETITIONERS .
VERSUS MEHAR CHAND ...... RESPONDENT
43. CWP NO.1068 OF 2018 STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... PETITIONERS VERSUS LAL SINGH ...... RESPONDENT
44. CWP NO.1069 of 2018 STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... PETITIONERS VERSUS BHUP SINGH ...... RESPONDENT
45. CWP NO.1405 OF 2018 STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... PETITIONERS VERSUS DAMODAR ...... RESPONDENT
46. CWP NO.2482 OF 2018 STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... PETITIONERS VERSUS ROSHAN LAL ...... RESPONDENT
47. CWP NO.2650 OF 2018 STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... PETITIONERS VERSUS MAKHAN SINGH ...... RESPONDENT ::: Downloaded on - 13/01/2023 20:31:50 :::CIS 9
48. CWP NO.2666 OF 2018 STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... PETITIONERS .
VERSUS
RAJ KUMAR ...... RESPONDENT
49. CWP-2770 OF 2018
STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... PETITIONERS
VERSUS
DEEP CHAND ...... RESPONDENT
50. CWP NO.2795 OF 2018
STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... PETITIONERS
VERSUS
BALBIR SINGH AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
51. CWP NO.2922 OF 2018
STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... PETITIONERS
VERSUS
GIAN CHAND ...... RESPONDENT
52. CWP NO.2975 OF 2018
STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... PETITIONERS
VERSUS
NEK RAJ ...... RESPONDENT
53. CWP NO.2976 OF 2018
STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... PETITIONERS
VERSUS
KAMLESH KUMAR ...... RESPONDENT
::: Downloaded on - 13/01/2023 20:31:50 :::CIS
10
54. CWP NO.2978 OF 2018
STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... PETITIONERS
.
VERSUS
HOSHIAR SINGH ...... RESPONDENT
55. CWP NO.2979 OF 2018
STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... PETITIONERS
VERSUS
DALIP SINGH ...... RESPONDENT
56. CWP NO.2980 OF 2018
STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... PETITIONERS
VERSUS
BIHARI LAL ...... RESPONDENT
57. CWP NO.2981 OF 2018
STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... PETITIONERS
VERSUS
BISHAN DASS ...... RESPONDENT
58. CWP NO.2982 OF 2018
STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... PETITIONERS
VERSUS
ANIL KUMAR ...... RESPONDENT
59. CWP NO.3077 OF 2018
STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... PETITIONERS
VERSUS
CHINKOO RAM ...... RESPONDENT
::: Downloaded on - 13/01/2023 20:31:50 :::CIS
11
60. CWP NO.64 OF 2019
STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... PETITIONERS
.
VERSUS
GIAN CHAND ...... RESPONDENT
61. CWP NO.88 OF 2019
STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... PETITIONERS
VERSUS
KUSHAL SINGH ...... RESPONDENT
62. CWP NO.109 OF 2019
STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... PETITIONERS
VERSUS
LEKH RAJ ...... RESPONDENT
63. CWP NO.168 OF 2019
STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... PETITIONERS
VERSUS
PYARE LAL ...... RESPONDENT
64. CWP NO.176 of 2019
STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... PETITIONERS
VERSUS
TEK CHAND AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
65. CWP NO.185 OF 2019
STATE OF HP AND ANOTHER ...... PETITIONERS
VERSUS
NETER SINGH AND ANOTHER ...... RESPONDENTS
::: Downloaded on - 13/01/2023 20:31:50 :::CIS
12
66. CWP NO.245 OF 2019
STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... PETITIONERS
.
VERSUS
BHOOP RAM ...... RESPONDENT
67. CWP NO.246 OF 2019
STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... PETITIONERS
VERSUS
OM PRAKASH AND ANOTHER ...... RESPONDENTS
68. CWP NO.247 OF 2019
STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... PETITIONERS
VERSUS
KIRPA RAM ...... RESPONDENT
69. CWP NO.250 OF 2019
STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... PETITIONERS
VERSUS
NEGI RAM ...... RESPONDENT
70. CWP NO.256 OF 2019
STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... PETITIONERS
VERSUS
MADAN LAL ...... RESPONDENT
71. CWP NO.275 OF 2019
STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... PETITIONERS
VERSUS
JOGINDER SINGH ...... RESPONDENT
::: Downloaded on - 13/01/2023 20:31:50 :::CIS
13
72. CWP NO.329 OF 2019
STATE OF HP AND ANOTHER ...... PETITIONERS
.
VERSUS
MEHAR CHAND ...... RESPONDENT
73. CWP NO.334 OF 2019
THE STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... PETITIONERS
VERSUS
NARAYAN DASS AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
74. CWP NO.365 OF 2019
STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... PETITIONERS
VERSUS
PREM BHADHUR AND ANOTHER ...... RESPONDENTS
75. CWP NO.556 OF 2019
STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... PETITIONERS
VERSUS
SATISH KUMAR RANA ...... RESPONDENT
76. CWP NO.626 OF 2019
STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... PETITIONERS
VERSUS
GIAN CHAND ...... RESPONDENT
77. CWP NO.706 OF 2019
STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... PETITIONERS
VERSUS
HANS RAJ ...... RESPONDENT
::: Downloaded on - 13/01/2023 20:31:50 :::CIS
14
78. CWP NO.748 OF 2019
STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... PETITIONERS
.
VERSUS
RAM DASS ...... RESPONDENT
79. CWP NO.826 OF 2019
THE STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... PETITIONERS
VERSUS
SATISH KUMAR ...... RESPONDENT
80. CWP NO.838 OF 2019
STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... PETITIONERS
VERSUS
KISHORI LAL ...... RESPONDENT
81. CWP NO.886 OF 2019
STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... PETITIONERS
VERSUS
AILU RAM AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
82. CWP NO.1065 OF 2019
STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... PETITIONERS
VERSUS
TILAK RAJ ...... RESPONDENT
83. CWP NO.1196 OF 2019
STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... PETITIONERS
VERSUS
NISHA DEVI ...... RESPONDENT
::: Downloaded on - 13/01/2023 20:31:50 :::CIS
15
84. CWP NO.1232 OF 2019
STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... PETITIONERS
.
VERSUS
SUDESH KUMAR ...... RESPONDENT
85. CWP NO.1235 OF 2019
STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... PETITIONERS
VERSUS
KRISHAN LAL AND ANOTHER ...... RESPONDENTS
86. CWP NO.1317 OF 2019
MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, CHAMBA ...... PETITIONER
VERSUS
KAILASHO AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
87. CWP NO.1347 OF 2019
PAWAN KUMAR ...... PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
88. CWP NO.1348 OF 2019
MANOJ KUMAR ...... PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
89. CWP NO.1396 of 2019
CHAUDHARY SARWAN KUMAR HIMACHAL PRADESH KRISHI VISHVAVIDYALAYA ...... PETITIONER VERSUS SARWAN KUMAR ...... RESPONDENT ::: Downloaded on - 13/01/2023 20:31:50 :::CIS 16
90. CWP NO.1493 OF 2019 MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, CHAMBA ...... PETITIONER .
VERSUS KEHAR SINGH AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
91. CWP NO.1494 OF 2019 MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, CHAMBA ...... PETITIONER VERSUS JAISO AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
92. CWP NO.1495 OF 2019 MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, CHAMBA ...... PETITIONER VERSUS KISHORI AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
93. CWP NO.1496 OF 2019 MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, CHAMBA ...... PETITIONER VERSUS TARVIJO AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
94. CWP NO.1716 OF 2019 PRITHVI CHAND SHARMA ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND ANOTHER ...... RESPONDENTS
95. CWP NO.2053 OF 2019 RAM LAL ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS ::: Downloaded on - 13/01/2023 20:31:50 :::CIS 17
96. CWP NO.2118 OF 2019 STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... PETITIONERS .
VERSUS VIJAY KUMAR ...... RESPONDENT
97. CWP NO.2119 OF 2019 THE STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... PETITIONERS VERSUS ABDESH SHARMA ...... RESPONDENT
98. CWP NO.2193 OF 2019 STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... PETITIONERS VERSUS KULDEEP SINGH ...... RESPONDENT
99. CWP NO.2481 OF 2019 BALAK RAM ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
100. CWP NO.2671 OF 2019 RAM BAHADUR ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
101. CWP NO.2673 OF 2019 MEERA BAI ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS ::: Downloaded on - 13/01/2023 20:31:50 :::CIS 18
102. CWP NO.2674 OF 2019 ISHWAR SINGH AND ANOTHER ...... PETITIONERS .
VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
103. CWP NO.2675 OF 2019 CHITTER BAHADUR ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
104. CWP NO.2676 OF 2019 DILE RAM ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
105. CWP NO.2677 OF 2019 OM PRAKASH AND OTHERS ...... PETITIONERS VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
106. CWP NO.2682 OF 2019 SURAT RAM ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
107. CWP NO.2683 OF 2019 VIJAY KUMAR ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS ::: Downloaded on - 13/01/2023 20:31:50 :::CIS 19
108. CWP NO.2684 OF 2019 MOHINDER SINGH ...... PETITIONER .
VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
109. CWP NO.2685 OF 2019 KHUSHAL CHAND ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
110. CWP NO.2686 OF 2019 NAR KALI ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
111. CWP NO.2835 OF 2019 ROOP SINGH ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS 112 CWP NO.3551 OF 2019 THE STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... PETITIONER VERSUS GULAB DEVI ...... RESPONDENT
113. CWP NO.3600 OF 2019 ROOP SINGH ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS ::: Downloaded on - 13/01/2023 20:31:50 :::CIS 20
114. CWP NO.3601 OF 2019 KHEM CHAND ...... PETITIONER .
VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
115. CWP NO.3790 OF 2019 JARMU RAM ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
116. CWP NO.3791 of 2019 OM PARKASH ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
117. CWP NO.3792 OF 2019 HARSH KUMAR ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
118. CWP NO.3793 OF 2019 TEK RAM ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
119. CWP No.4040 OF 2019 KISHAN SINGH ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS ::: Downloaded on - 13/01/2023 20:31:50 :::CIS 21
120. CWP NO.4130 OF 2019 VISHWA NATH ...... PETITIONER .
VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
121. CWP NO.4200 OF 2019 RAMESH CHAND AND OTHERS ...... PETITIONERS VERSUS STATE OF HP AND ANOTHER ...... RESPONDENTS
122. CWP NO.4328 OF 2019 DILA RAM ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
123. CMP.M-1905 OF 2019 STATE OF HP AND ANOTHER ...... PETITIONERS VERSUS YASHPAL AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
124. CWPOA NO.292 OF 2019 SUKH DAYAL ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
125. CWPOA NO.294 OF 2019 SUNIL KUMAR ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS ::: Downloaded on - 13/01/2023 20:31:50 :::CIS 22
126. CWPOA NO.417 OF 2019 YOG RAJ ...... PETITIONER .
VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
127. CWPOA NO.1032 OF 2019 RAM LAL ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
128. CWPOA NO.2680 OF 2019 DEV DITI AND OTHERS ...... PETITIONERS VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
129. CWPOA NO.3290 OF 2019 TULSI RAM ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
130. CWPOA NO.4950 OF 2019 TASHI PALMOO ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
131. CWPOA NO.5004 OF 2019 SHANTI ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS ::: Downloaded on - 13/01/2023 20:31:50 :::CIS 23
132. CWPOA NO.5006 OF 2019 AMAR SINGH ...... PETITIONER .
VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
133. CWPOA NO.5017 OF 2019 SITA DEVI ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
134. CWPOA NO.5101 OF 2019 ASHA ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
135. CWPOA NO.5108 OF 2019 BAM BAHADUR ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
136. CWPOA NO.5110 OF 2019 POONAM ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
137. CWPOA NO.5112 OF 2019 VED KUMARI ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS ::: Downloaded on - 13/01/2023 20:31:50 :::CIS 24
138. CWPOA NO.5215 OF 2019 KANCHO DEVI ...... PETITIONER .
VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS
139. CWPOA NO.5376 OF 2019 YOG RAJ AND OTHERS ...... PETITIONERS VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
140. CWPOA NO.5511 of 2019 MAHINDER SINGH ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
141. CWPOA NO.5512 OF 2019 OM PRAKASH ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND ANOTHER ...... RESPONDENTS
142. CWPOA NO.5527 OF 2019 LEKH RAM ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
143. CWPOA NO.5530 OF 2019 ROOP SINGH ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS ::: Downloaded on - 13/01/2023 20:31:50 :::CIS 25
144. CWPOA NO.5688 OF 2019 RAJESH KUMAR ...... PETITIONER .
VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
145. CWPOA NO.5792 OF 2019 RAM KRISHAN ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
146. CWPOA NO.5798 OF 2019 KALI DEVI ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
147. CWPOA NO.5847 OF 2019 KHER SINGH ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
148. CWPOA NO.5857 OF 2019 BAHADUR SINGH ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
149. CWPOA NO.5971 OF 2019 KESHAV RAM AND OTHERS ...... PETITIONERS VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS ::: Downloaded on - 13/01/2023 20:31:50 :::CIS 26
150. CWPOA NO.6119 OF 2019 BABU RAM ...... PETITIONER .
VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
151. CWPOA NO.6135 OF 2019 BABU RAM ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
152. CWPOA NO.6202 OF 2019 YOGENDER SINGH ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
153. CWPOA NO.6256 OF 2019 BHAGAT RAM ...... PETITIONER VERSUS Y. S. PARMAR UNIVERSITY SOLAN ...... RESPONDENT
154. CWPOA NO.6278 OF 2019 PRAKASH CHAND ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
155. CWPOA NO.6284 OF 2019 SATYA PAL SHARMA ...... PETITIONER VERSUS DR. Y.S. PARMAR UNIVERSITY ...... RESPONDENT ::: Downloaded on - 13/01/2023 20:31:50 :::CIS 27
156. CWPOA NO.6290 OF 2019 GIAN CHAND ...... PETITIONER .
VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
157. CWPOA NO.6336 OF 2019 SANJAY SHARMA ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
158. CWPOA NO.6540 OF 2019 NIKA RAM ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
159. CWPOA NO.6685 OF 2019 SOHAN LAL ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
160. CWPOA NO.7085 OF 2019 SHUKRU RAM ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
161. CWPOA NO.7089 OF 2019 HET RAM ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS ::: Downloaded on - 13/01/2023 20:31:50 :::CIS 28
162. CWPOA NO.7171 OF 2019 JAGPAL SINGH ...... PETITIONER .
VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
163. CWPOA NO.7250 OF 2019 DEV RAJ PUNDIR ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
164. CWPOA NO.7760 OF 2019 GUMAN SINGH ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
165. CWPOA NO.7762 OF 2019 RAM LAL AND OTHERS ...... PETITIONERS VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
166. CWPOA NO.7768 OF 2019 GYAR SINGH AND OTHERS ...... PETITIONERS VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
167. CWPOA NO.7837 OF 2019 DESH RAJ ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS ::: Downloaded on - 13/01/2023 20:31:50 :::CIS 29
168. EX.PT-26 OF 2019 KHERU RAM ...... PETITIONER .
VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
169. EX.PT NO.48 OF 2019 GOPAL ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
170. EX.PT NO.107 OF 2019 GORE ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
171. CWP NO.21 OF 2020 PRAMODH SINGH ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
172. CWP NO.117 OF 2020 KARAM CHAND ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
173. CWP NO.493 OF 2020 STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... PETITIONERS VERSUS ASHOK KUMAR AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS ::: Downloaded on - 13/01/2023 20:31:50 :::CIS 30
174. CWP NO.715 OF 2020 BANTA SINGH ...... PETITIONER .
VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
175. CWP NO.751 OF 2020 STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... PETITIONERS VERSUS DESH RAJ ...... RESPONDENT
176. CWP NO.809 OF 2020 SUDHAMA RAM AND OTHERS ...... PETITIONERS VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
177. CWP NO.1162 OF 2020 NAND LAL AND ANOTHER ...... PETITIONERS VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
178. CWP NO.1164 of 2020 NAROTAM RAM AND OTHERS ...... PETITIONERS VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
179. CWP NO.1346 OF 2020 STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... PETITIONERS VERSUS DESH RAJ ...... RESPONDENT ::: Downloaded on - 13/01/2023 20:31:50 :::CIS 31
180. CWP NO.1741 OF 2020 GULAM DEEN ...... PETITIONER .
VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
181. CWP NO.1762 OF 2020 MAST RAM ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
182. CWP NO.2311 OF 2020 GOPAL CHAND ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
183. CWP NO.2318 OF 2020 BISHAN DASS ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
184. CWP-2333 OF 2020 HIRA LAL ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
185. CWP NO.2335 OF 2020 DIL BAHADUR ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS ::: Downloaded on - 13/01/2023 20:31:50 :::CIS 32
186. CWP NO.2371 OF 2020 KHUB RAM ...... PETITIONER .
VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
187. CWP NO.2394 OF 2020 SURESH KUMAR ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
188. CWP NO.2404 OF 2020 CHUNI LAL ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
189. CWP NO.2405 OF 2020 SANJAY SHARMA ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
190. CWP NO.2417 OF 2020 BASANT RAM ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
191. CWP NO.2420 OF 2020 SHEELA THAKUR ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS ::: Downloaded on - 13/01/2023 20:31:50 :::CIS 33
192. CWP NO.2466 OF 2020 DEV KUMAR SHARMA ...... PETITIONER .
VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
193. CWP NO.2467 OF 2020 NARESH KUMAR ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
194. CWP NO.2471 OF 2020 ROSHAN LAL ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
195. CWP NO.2560 OF 2020 RAM KALI ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
196. CWP NO.2561 OF 2020 MAN BAHADUR ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
197. CWP NO.2562 OF 2020 DHANSARA ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS ::: Downloaded on - 13/01/2023 20:31:50 :::CIS 34
198. CWP NO.2564 OF 2020 PAVITA DEVI ...... PETITIONER .
VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
199. CWP NO.2565 OF 2020 NAINSARA ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
200. CWP NO.2566 OF 2020 BHIM BAHADUR ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
201. CWP NO.2567 OF 2020 DAL BAHADUR ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
202. CWP NO.2915 OF 2020 KAILASH CHAND ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
203. CWP NO.2960 of 2020 NAINA DEVI ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS ::: Downloaded on - 13/01/2023 20:31:50 :::CIS 35
204. CWP NO.2963 OF 2020 SUNDER SINGH ...... PETITIONER .
VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
205. CWP NO.2987 OF 2020 SHER SINGH ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
206. CWP NO.3014 OF 2020 SHANTI DEVI ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
207. CWP NO.3037 OF 2020 TEJ BEER SINGH ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
208. CWP NO.3143 OF 2020 RAM DAYAL ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
209. CWP NO.3144 OF 2020 HET RAM ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS ::: Downloaded on - 13/01/2023 20:31:50 :::CIS 36
210. CWP NO.3239 OF 2020 NARAYAN DASS ...... PETITIONER .
VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
211. CWP NO.3371 OF 2020 STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... PETITIONERS VERSUS KAILASH CHAND AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
212. CWP NO.3424 OF 2020 JEET RAM ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
213. CWP NO.3536 OF 2020 DHARAM SINGH ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
214. CWP NO.3570 OF 2020 NIRMALA DEVI ...... PETITIONER VERSUS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY (HEALTH) AND OTHERS...... RESPONDENTS
215. CWP NO.3649 OF 2020 ALAM CHAND ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS ::: Downloaded on - 13/01/2023 20:31:50 :::CIS 37
216. CWP NO.3653 OF 2020 SOM BAHADUR ...... PETITIONER .
VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
217. CWP NO.3804 OF 2020 RAVINDER KUMAR ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
218. CWP NO.3900 OF 2020 UMESH LARZOO ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
219. CWP NO.3904 OF 2020 EK RAJ AND OTHERS ...... PETITIONERS VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
220. CWP NO.3972 OF 2020 STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... PETITIONER VERSUS RATTAN CHAND ...... RESPONDENT
221. CWP NO.4036 OF 2020 GEETA RAM ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS ::: Downloaded on - 13/01/2023 20:31:50 :::CIS 38
222. CWP NO.4060 OF 2020 DUNI CHAND ...... PETITIONER .
VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
223. CWP NO.4061 OF 2020 BALBIR SINGH ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
224. CWP NO.4064 OF 2020 LEKH RAM ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
225. CWP NO.4136 OF 2020 STATE OF HP AND ANOTHER ...... PETITIONERS VERSUS DEVI SINGH ...... RESPONDENT
226. CWP NO.4171 OF 2020 BALBIR SINGH ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
227. CWP NO.4247 OF 2020 BHIM BAHADUR ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS ::: Downloaded on - 13/01/2023 20:31:50 :::CIS 39
228. CWP NO.4272 OF 2020 HUKAM CHAND AND ANOTHER ...... PETITIONERS .
VERSUS STATE OF HP AND ANOTHER ...... RESPONDENTS
229. CWP NO.4289 OF 2020 MOHAN LAL ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
230. CWP NO.4396 OF 2020 BHAGAT RAM ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
231. CWP NO.4549 OF 2020 ISHWAR DASS AND OTHERS ...... PETITIONERS VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
232. CWP NO.4662 OF 2020 STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... PETITIONERS VERSUS DHALE RAM ...... RESPONDENT
233. CWP NO.4779 OF 2020 RADHA DEVI ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS ::: Downloaded on - 13/01/2023 20:31:50 :::CIS 40
234. CWP NO.4781 OF 2020 ROSHAN LAL ...... PETITIONER .
VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
235. CWP NO.4782 OF 2020 URMILA DEVI ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
236. CWP NO.4785 OF 2020 JAGGI RAM SHARMA ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
237. CWP NO.4786 OF 2020 OM PRAKASH ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
238. CWP NO.4788 OF 2020 EKA BAHADUR ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
239. CWP NO.4789 OF 2020 RAM KALI ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS ::: Downloaded on - 13/01/2023 20:31:50 :::CIS 41
240. CWP NO.4892 OF 2020 PREM DUTT ...... PETITIONER .
VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
241. CWP NO.4897 OF 2020 GURDEV SINGH ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
242. CWP NO.4898 OF 2020 CHUNI LAL AND OTHERS ...... PETITIONERS VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
243. CWP NO.5193 OF 2020 VINOD KUMAR ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
244. CWP NO.5194 of 2020 RAM GOPAL ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
245. CWP NO.5218 OF 2020 SHER SINGH ...... PETITIONER VERSUS HP STATE FOREST DEVELOPMENT CORP LTD AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS ::: Downloaded on - 13/01/2023 20:31:50 :::CIS 42
246. CWP NO.5457 OF 2020 STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... PETITIONERS .
VERSUS
KIRPA RAM ...... PETITIONER
247. CWP NO.5480 OF 2020
BHUP RAM ...... PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
248. CWP NO.5481 OF 2020
KHARAK BAHADUR ...... PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
249. CWP NO.5482 OF 2020
KULDEEP SHARMA ...... PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
250. CWP NO.5487 OF 2020
STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... PETITIONERS
VERSUS
KAMLA DEVI ...... RESPONDENT
251. CWP NO.5489 OF 2020
STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... PETITIONERS
VERSUS
LIAQ RAM ...... RESPONDENT
::: Downloaded on - 13/01/2023 20:31:50 :::CIS
43
252. CWP NO.5500 OF 2020
PRITMO ...... PETITIONER
.
VERSUS
STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
253. CWP NO.5546 OF 2020
STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... PETITIONER
VERSUS
KARAM CHAND ...... RESPONDENT
254. CWP NO.5620 OF 2020
STATE OF HP AND ANOTHER ...... PETITIONER
VERSUS
BALDEV SINGH ...... RESPONDENT
255. CWP NO.5712 OF 2020
STATE OF HP ...... PETITIONER
VERSUS
YOGENDER SINGH ...... RESPONDENT
256. CWP NO.6079 OF 2020
STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... PETITIONERS
VERSUS
NANAK CHAND ...... RESPONDENT
257. CWPOA NO.19 OF 2020
HARI RAM ...... PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
::: Downloaded on - 13/01/2023 20:31:50 :::CIS
44
258. CWPOA NO.25 OF 2020
RAVI SHARMA AND OTHERS ...... PETITIONERS
.
VERSUS
STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
259. CWPOA NO.66 OF 2020
NARESH SHARMA ...... PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
260. CWPOA NO.136 OF 2020
RITA DOGRA ...... PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
261. CWPOA NO.195 OF 2020
ROSHAN LAL ...... PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
262. CWPOA NO.503 OF 2020
LAXMI CHAND ...... PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
263. CWPOA NO.514 OF 2020
KARAN CHAND ...... PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENT
::: Downloaded on - 13/01/2023 20:31:50 :::CIS
45
264. CWPOA NO.1328 OF 2020
ANGAD KUMAR ...... PETITIONER
.
VERSUS
STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
265. CWPOA NO.1967 OF 2020
JAI PAL ...... PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
266. CWPOA NO.1968 OF 2020
MEHARBAN SINGH ...... PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
267. CWPOA NO.3042 OF 2020
SHYAM LAL ...... PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
268. CWPOA NO.3214 OF 2020
KESHAV RAM ...... PETITIONER
VERSUS
DR. Y.S. PARMAR UNIVERSITY ...... RESPONDENT
269. CWPOA NO.3300 OF 2020
SURENDER SINGH ...... PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
::: Downloaded on - 13/01/2023 20:31:50 :::CIS
46
270. CWPOA NO.3304 OF 2020
NAINA KALI ...... PETITIONER
.
VERSUS
STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
271. CWPOA NO.4193 OF 2020
DEEP CHAND AND OTHERS ...... PETITIONERS
VERSUS
STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
272. CWPOA NO.4347 OF 2020
TULLA RAM ...... PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
273. CWPOA NO.4357 OF 2020
PURNA NAND ...... PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
274. CWPOA NO.4486 OF 2020
PUSHAP DEV ...... PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF HP AND ANOTHER ...... RESPONDENTS
275. CWPOA NO.4778 OF 2020
DESH RAJ ...... PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
::: Downloaded on - 13/01/2023 20:31:50 :::CIS
47
276. CWPOA NO.4806 OF 2020
PALA SINGH ...... PETITIONER
.
VERSUS
STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
277. CWPOA NO.5346 OF 2020
MASHI DEVI ...... PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
278. CWPOA NO.5549 OF 2020
RANDHIR KUMAR ...... PETITIONER
VERSUS
DR. Y.S. PARMAR UNIVERSITY ...... RESPONDENT
279. CWPOA NO.5622 OF 2020
DEVI DASS ...... PETITIONER
VERSUS
DR. Y.S. PARMAR UNIVERSITY ...... RESPONDENT
280. CWPOA NO.5624 OF 2020
NEK RAM ...... PETITIONER
VERSUS
DR. Y.S. PARMAR UNIVERSITY ...... RESPONDENT
281. CWPOA NO.5626 OF 2020
LABEL CHAND ...... PETITIONER
VERSUS
DR. Y.S. PARMAR UNIVERSITY ...... RESPONDENT
::: Downloaded on - 13/01/2023 20:31:50 :::CIS
48
282. CWPOA NO.5642 OF 2020
ISHWAR SINGH ...... PETITIONER
.
VERSUS
DR. Y.S. PARMAR UNIVERSITY ...... RESPONDENT
283. CWPOA NO.5700 OF 2020
LEELA DUTT ...... PETITIONER
VERSUS
DR. Y.S. PARMAR UNIVERSITY ...... RESPONDENT
284. CWPOA NO.5703 OF 2020
RAJINDER SINGH ...... PETITIONER
VERSUS
DR. Y.S. PARMAR UNIVERSITY ...... RESPONDENT
285. CWPOA NO.5707 OF 2020
DHANI RAM ...... PETITIONER
VERSUS
DR. Y.S. PARMAR UNIVERSITY ...... RESPONDENT
286. CWPOA NO.5709 OF 2020
MAST RAM ...... PETITIONER
VERSUS
DR. Y.S. PARMAR UNIVERSITY ...... RESPONDENT
287. CWPOA NO.5728 OF 2020
SUKH BAHADUR ...... PETITIONER
VERSUS
DR. Y.S. PARMAR UNIVERSITY ...... RESPONDENT
::: Downloaded on - 13/01/2023 20:31:50 :::CIS
49
288. CWPOA NO.5729 OF 2020
SOHAN LAL ...... PETITIONER
.
VERSUS
DR. Y.S. PARMAR UNIVERSITY ...... RESPONDENT
289. CWPOA-5732 OF 2020
NEEL BAHADUR ...... PETITIONER
VERSUS
DR. Y.S. PARMAR UNIVERSITY ...... RESPONDENT
290.
JAI PAL
r to
CWPOA-5735 OF 2020
VERSUS
...... PETITIONER
DR. Y.S. PARMAR UNIVERSITY ...... RESPONDENT
291. CWPOA NO.5747 OF 2020
JOGINDER DUTT ...... PETITIONER
VERSUS
DR. Y.S. PARMAR UNIVERSITY ...... RESPONDENT
292. CWPOA NO.5749 OF 2020
BUDHI SINGH ...... PETITIONER
VERSUS
DR. Y.S. PARMAR UNIVERSITY ...... RESPONDENT
293. CWPOA NO.5752 OF 2020
SEWAK RAM ...... PETITIONER
VERSUS
DR. Y.S. PARMAR UNIVERSITY ...... RESPONDENT
::: Downloaded on - 13/01/2023 20:31:50 :::CIS
50
294. CWPOA NO.5757 OF 2020
RAVI DUTT SHARMA ...... PETITIONER
.
VERSUS
DR. Y.S. PARMAR UNIVERSITY ...... RESPONDENT
295. CWPOA-5988 OF 2020
SHER SINGH ...... PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
296. CWPOA NO.6231 OF 2020
HARBER SINGH ...... PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
297. CWPOA NO.6996 OF 2020
BANSI LAL ...... PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENT
298. CWPOA NO.7457 OF 2020
RAMESH KUMAR GUPTA ...... PETITIONER
VERSUS
HPSEB LTD. AND ANOTHER ...... RESPONDENTS
299. CWPOA NO.7594 OF 2020
ASHOK KUMAR ...... PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
::: Downloaded on - 13/01/2023 20:31:50 :::CIS
51
300. COPCT NO.1085 OF 2020
MEHAR CHAND ...... PETITIONER
.
VERSUS
TARUN KAPOOR AND ANOTHER ...... RESPONDENTS
301. EX.PT NO.354 OF 2020
PARAS RAM ...... PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENT
302. EX.PT. NO.147 OF 2020 in CWP-1095 of 2011 DESH RAJ ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENT
303. CWP NO.19 OF 2021 TRILOK CHAND ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND ANOTHER ...... RESPONDENTS
304. CWP NO.29 OF 2021 AMRIK SINGH AND OTHERS ...... PETITIONERS VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
305. CWP NO.30 OF 2021 PAWAN KUMAR ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS ::: Downloaded on - 13/01/2023 20:31:50 :::CIS 52
306. CWP NO.37 OF 2021 STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... PETITIONERS .
VERSUS
MANI RAM ...... RESPONDENT
307. CWP NO.60 OF 2021
RAM DASS ...... PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
308. CWP NO.61 OF 2021
BHIM BAHADUR ...... PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
309. CWP NO.62 OF 2021
BUDHI KALA ...... PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
310. CWP NO.73 of 2021
OM PRAKASH ...... PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
311. CWP NO.74 OF 2021
DHARAM CHAND ...... PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
::: Downloaded on - 13/01/2023 20:31:50 :::CIS
53
312. CWP NO.110 OF 2021
KALI MAYA ...... PETITIONER
.
VERSUS
STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
313. CWP NO.117 OF 2021
KULDEEP CHAND ...... PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
314. CWP NO.198 OF 2021
PARAS RAM ...... PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
315. CWP NO.206 OF 2021
REVAT RAM ...... PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
316. CWP NO.208 OF 2021
LEKH RAJ ...... PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
317. CWP NO.209 OF 2021
SUNDER SINGH ...... PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
::: Downloaded on - 13/01/2023 20:31:50 :::CIS
54
318. CWP NO.244 OF 2021
LEKH RAJ ...... PETITIONER
.
VERSUS
STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
319. CWP NO.268 OF 2021
JAGAT RAM ...... PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
320. CWP NO.278 OF 2021
SATYA PAL AND ANOTHER ...... PETITIONERS
VERSUS
STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
321. CWP NO.314 OF 2021
YASHWANT SINGH ...... PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
322. CWP NO.324 OF 2021
SHANKAR SINGH ...... PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
323. CWP NO.327 OF 2021
RAM BAHADUR ...... PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
::: Downloaded on - 13/01/2023 20:31:50 :::CIS
55
324. CWP NO.476 OF 2021
STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... PETITIONERS
.
VERSUS
GEETA DEVI ...... RESPONDENT
325. CWP NO.783 OF 2021
STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... PETITIONERS
VERSUS
SURESH KUMAR ...... RESPONDENT
326. CWP No.825 OF 2021
DAULAT RAM AND ANOTHER ...... PETITIONERS
VERSUS
STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
327. CWP No.830 OF 2021
STATE OF HP AND ANOTHER ...... PETITIONERS
VERSUS
HARNAM SINGH ...... RESPONDENT
328. CWP No.831 OF 2021
DHAYAN DASSI ...... PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
329. CWP No.835 OF 2021
STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... PETITIONERS
VERSUS
PARAS RAM ...... RESPONDENT
::: Downloaded on - 13/01/2023 20:31:50 :::CIS
56
330. CWP No.855 OF 2021
RAM KRISHAN AND ANOTHER ...... PETITIONERS
.
VERSUS
STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
331. CWP No.876 OF 2021
HEM SINGH ...... PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
332. CWP No.936 OF 2021
BHAGWANT SINGH ...... PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
333. CWP No.938 OF 2021
DAULAT RAM ...... PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
334. CWP No.942 OF 2021
NESHU ...... PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
335. CWP No.949 OF 2021
RAJIV KUMAR ...... PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
::: Downloaded on - 13/01/2023 20:31:50 :::CIS
57
336. CWP No.1156 OF 2021
RAJNI DEVI ...... PETITIONER
.
VERSUS
STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
337. CWP No.1159 OF 2021
LEKH RAJ ...... PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
338. CWP No.1160 OF 2021
VARINDER KUMAR ...... PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
339. CWP No.1161 OF 2021
KAUSHLYA DEVI ...... PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
340. CWP No.1162 OF 2021
CHET RAM ...... PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
341. CWP No.1163 OF 2021
NARESH KUMAR ...... PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
::: Downloaded on - 13/01/2023 20:31:50 :::CIS
58
342. CWP No.1164 OF 2021
JITENDER SINGH ...... PETITIONER
.
VERSUS
STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
343. CWP No. 1165 OF 2021
RATTAN CHAND ...... PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
344. CWP No.1166 OF 2021
SURENDER KUMAR TANWAR AND OTHERS ...... PETITIONERS
VERSUS
STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
345. CWP No.1167 OF 2021
NAND LAL ...... PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
346. CWP No.1168 OF 2021
MANSA RAM ...... PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
347. CWP No.1169 OF 2021
JAGDISH SINGH ...... PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
::: Downloaded on - 13/01/2023 20:31:50 :::CIS
59
348. CWP No.1175 OF 2021
RAJ BALA ...... PETITIONER
.
VERSUS
STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
349. CWP No.1176 OF 2021
NEELAM ...... PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
350. CWP No.1177 OF 2021
MUNNI DEVI ...... PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
351. CWP No.1178 OF 2021
KAMLESH ...... PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
352. CWP No.1182 OF 2021
LAJO DEVI ...... PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
353. CWP No.1183 OF 2021
RAM KUMAR ...... PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
::: Downloaded on - 13/01/2023 20:31:50 :::CIS
60
354. CWP No.1187 OF 2021
MAGHRO ...... PETITIONER
.
VERSUS
STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
355. CWP No.1189 OF 2021
RANDHIR SHARMA ...... PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
356. CWP No.1190 OF 2021
ANIL KUMAR ...... PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
357. CWP-1198 OF 2021
STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... PETITIONER
VERSUS
GOVIND RAM ...... RESPONDENT
358. CWP No.1252 OF 2021
RAJINDER SINGH ...... PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
359. CWP No.1254 OF 2021
PRATAP CHAND ...... PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF HP ADND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
::: Downloaded on - 13/01/2023 20:31:50 :::CIS
61
360. CWP No.1257 OF 2021
AMRIT LAL AND OTHERS ...... PETITIONERS
.
VERSUS
STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
361. CWP No.1304 OF 2021
STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... PETITIONERS
VERSUS
OM PARKASH ...... RESPONDENT
362. CWP No.1371 OF 2021
DEVKU DEVI ...... PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
363. CWP No.1373 OF 2021
CHANDRESHWAR AND ANOTHER ...... PETITIONERS
VERSUS
STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
364. CWP-1376 OF 2021
MANI CHAND ...... PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
365. CWP No.1377 OF 2021
NEHAR SINGH AND OTHERS ...... PETITIONERS
VERSUS
STATE OF HP AND ANOTHER ...... RESPONDENTS
::: Downloaded on - 13/01/2023 20:31:50 :::CIS
62
366. CWP No.1379 OF 2021
PADAM NABH ...... PETITIONER
.
VERSUS
STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
367. CWP No.1400 OF 2021
STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... PETITIONERS
VERSUS
JAGDISH CHAND ...... RESPONDENT
368. CWP-1408 OF 2021
MADAN LAL ...... PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
369. CWP No.1409 OF 2021
PRAMOD KUMAR ...... PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
370. CWP No.1446 OF 2021
STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... PETITIONERS
VERSUS
NAROTTAM SINGH ...... RESPONDENT
371. CWP No.1521 OF 2021
JAI LAL ...... PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
::: Downloaded on - 13/01/2023 20:31:50 :::CIS
63
372. CWP No.1523 OF 2021
NEK RAM ...... PETITIONER
.
VERSUS
STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
373. CWP No.1524 OF 2021
UTTAM SINGH ...... PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
374. CWP-1580 OF 2021
STATE OF HP AND ORS ...... PETITIONER
VERSUS
SUBHASH KUMAR ...... RESPONDENTS
375. CWP No.1591 OF 2021
VIDYA DEVI ...... PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
376. CWP No.1592 OF 2021
MOHINDER KUMAR ...... PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
377. CWP No.1593 OF 2021
RAMESH CHAND ...... PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
::: Downloaded on - 13/01/2023 20:31:50 :::CIS
64
378. CWP No.1594 OF 2021
JAGESH KUMAR ...... PETITIONER
.
VERSUS
HPSEB LTD AND ANOTHER ...... RESPONDENTS
379. CWP No.1595 OF 2021
ROOP SINGH ...... PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF HP
380. CWP No.1596 OF 2021
SATYA PAL AND ANOTHER ...... PETITIONERS
VERSUS
STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
381. CWP No.1599 OF 2021
TEK CHAND ...... PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
382. CWP No.1601 OF 2021
RAJINDER SINGH ...... PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
383. CWP No.1602 OF 2021
ARUN KUMAR ...... PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
::: Downloaded on - 13/01/2023 20:31:50 :::CIS
65
384. CWP No.1603 OF 2021
ASHWANI KUMAR ...... PETITIONER
.
VERSUS
STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
385. CWP No.1604 OF 2021
BHIM BAHADUR ...... PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
386. CWP No.1637 OF 2021
GOVIND THAKUR ...... PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
387. CWP No.1666 OF 2021
NANDU RAM ...... PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
388. CWP No.1702 OF 2021
SHIV CHAND ...... PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
389. CWP No.1714 OF 2021
KAMLA DEVI ...... PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
::: Downloaded on - 13/01/2023 20:31:50 :::CIS
66
390. CWP NO.1718 OF 2021
KAMLA ...... PETITIONER
.
VERSUS
STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
391. CWP NO.1719 OF 2021
BASIR MOHAMMAD AND ANOTHER ...... PETITIONERS
VERSUS
STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
392. CWP NO.1720 OF 2021
CHAMELI DEVI ...... PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
393. CWP NO.1726 OF 2021
SUMITRA SHARMA ...... PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
394. CWP NO.1727 OF 2021
KANCHA ...... PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
395. CWP NO.1729 OF 2021
MOHINDER DUTT SHARMA ...... PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
::: Downloaded on - 13/01/2023 20:31:50 :::CIS
67
396. CWP NO.1752 OF 2021
RAKESH KUMAR AND OTHERS ...... PETITIONERS
.
VERSUS
STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
397. CWP NO.1754 OF 2021
PADAM BAHADUR ...... PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
398. CWP NO.1777 OF 2021
SURINDER KUMAR AND OTHERS ...... PETITIONERS
VERSUS
STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
399. CWP NO.1786 OF 2021
LEHNA SINGH ...... PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
400. CWP NO.1787 OF 2021
RANJEET SINGH ...... PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
401. CWP NO.1803 OF 2021
SANTOSH KUMAR ...... PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
::: Downloaded on - 13/01/2023 20:31:50 :::CIS
68
402. CWP NO.1804 OF 2021
GURDEEP SINGH ...... PETITIONER
.
VERSUS
STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
403. CWP NO.1845 OF 2021
RAJEEV KUMAR AND OTHERS ...... PETITIONERS
VERSUS
STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
404. CWP-2100 OF 2021
HPSEB LTD AND OTHERS ...... PETITIONERS
VERSUS
M/S RENNY STEELS VILLAGE ...... RESPONDENTS
405. CWP NO.2105 OF 2021
ATMA RAM ...... PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
406. CWP NO.2409 OF 2021
STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... PETITIONERS
VERSUS
RAJ MAL ...... RESPONDENTS
407. CWP NO.2482 OF 2021
PAWAN KUMAR ...... PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
::: Downloaded on - 13/01/2023 20:31:50 :::CIS
69
408. CWP NO.2637 OF 2021
RAM PAL AND ANOTHER ...... PETITIONERS
.
VERSUS
STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
409. CWP NO.2878 OF 2021
SOM DUTT AND OTHERS ...... PETITIONERS
VERSUS
STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
410. CWP NO.2966 OF 2021
SURAT RAM ...... PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
411. CWP NO.3007 OF 2021
STATE OF HP AND ANOTHER ...... PETITIONERS
VERSUS
TARA CHAND ALIAS PURAN CHAND ...... RESPONDENT
412. CWP NO.3008 OF 2021
LAL CHAND ...... PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
413. CWP NO.3103 OF 2021
MAST RAM ...... PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
::: Downloaded on - 13/01/2023 20:31:50 :::CIS
70
414. CWP NO.3171 OF 2021
STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... PETITIONERS
.
VERSUS
SHYAM SINGH ...... RESPONDENT
415. CWP NO.3185 OF 2021
STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... PETITIONERS
VERSUS
KHERU RAM
416. CWP NO.3252 OF 2021
KULDIP CHAND ...... PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
417. CWP NO.3294 OF 2021
KASHMA DUTT AND OTHERS ...... PETITIONERS
VERSUS
STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
418. CWP NO.3687 OF 2021
NIMA SHERPIN ...... PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
419. CWP NO.3720 OF 2021
CHANDE RAM ...... PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
::: Downloaded on - 13/01/2023 20:31:50 :::CIS
71
420. CWP-3750 OF 2021
DINESH KUMAR ...... PETITIONER
.
VERSUS
STATE OF HP AND ORS ...... RESPONDENTS
421. CWP NO.3751 OF 2021
SANJAY SHARMA ...... PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
422. CWP NO.3884 OF 2021
STATE OF HP AND ANOTHER ...... PETITIONERS
VERSUS
PYARE LAL ...... RESPONDENT
423. CWP NO.3994 OF 2021
GUMAN SINGH ...... PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
424. CWP NO.4064 OF 2021
SHER SINGH ...... PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
425. CWP NO.4151 OF 2021
PREM CHAND ...... PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
::: Downloaded on - 13/01/2023 20:31:50 :::CIS
72
426. CWP NO.4182 OF 2021
KAMAL SINGH ...... PETITIONER
.
VERSUS
STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
427. CWP NO.4183 OF 2021
AMAR NATH SHARMA ...... PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
428. CWP NO.4185 OF 2021
BELI RAM ...... PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
429. CWP NO.4196 OF 2021
UTTAM CHAND ...... PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
430. CWP NO.4200 OF 2021
ASGAR ALI ...... PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
431. CWP NO.4215 OF 2021
JIA LAL ...... PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
::: Downloaded on - 13/01/2023 20:31:50 :::CIS
73
432. CWP NO.4249 OF 2021
DHARAM CHAND ...... PETITIONER
.
VERSUS
STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
433. CWP NO.4252 OF 2021
PRITHI CHAND ...... PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
434. CWP NO.4254 OF 2021
VINOD KUMAR ...... PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
435. CWP NO.4384 OF 2021
INDER BAHADUR ...... PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
436. CWP NO.4542 OF 2021
OM PARKASH ...... PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
437. CWP NO.4543 OF 2021
SANT RAM ...... PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
::: Downloaded on - 13/01/2023 20:31:50 :::CIS
74
438. CWP NO.4547 OF 2021
YASHWANT SINGH ...... PETITIONER
.
VERSUS
STATE OF HP ANOTHER ...... RESPONDENTS
439. CWP NO.4551 OF 2021
LAL SINGH ...... PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
440. CWP NO.4552 OF 2021
NEENA SHARMA AND ANOTHER ...... PETITIONERS
VERSUS
STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
441. CWP NO.4592 OF 2021
MUNSHI RAM ...... PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
442. CWP NO.4843 OF 2021
JOGINDER SINGH ...... PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
443. CWP NO.4863 OF 2021
KHEM RAJ ...... PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
::: Downloaded on - 13/01/2023 20:31:50 :::CIS
75
444. CWP NO.4935 OF 2021
MADAN SINGH AND ANOTHER ...... PETITIONERS
.
VERSUS
STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
445. CWP NO.5154 OF 2021
KAMLA DEVI AND OTHERS ...... PETITIONERS
VERSUS
STATE OF HP AND ANOTHER ...... RESPONDENTS
446. CWP NO.5906 OF 2021
PHURPA ...... PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
447. CWP NO.5923 OF 2021
INDERJEET ...... PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
448. CWP NO.5926 OF 2021
RAM BAHADUR ...... PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
449. CWP NO.5950 OF 2021
AMAR SINGH ...... PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
::: Downloaded on - 13/01/2023 20:31:50 :::CIS
76
450. CWP NO.6259 OF 2021
JAWAHAR SINGH ...... PETITIONER
.
VERSUS
STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
451. CWP NO.6261 OF 2021
SADA NAND ...... PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
452. CWP NO.6507 OF 2021
JIA LAL ...... PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
453. CWP NO.6508 OF 2021
BHIKHA RAM ...... PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
454. CWP NO.6511 OF 2021
JIA LAL ...... PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
455. CWP NO.6512 OF 2021
VINOD KUMAR ...... PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
::: Downloaded on - 13/01/2023 20:31:50 :::CIS
77
456. CWP NO.6604 OF 2021
YUDHBIR SINGH ...... PETITIONER
.
VERSUS
STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
457. CWP NO.6746 OF 2021
UMESH CHAND ...... PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
458. CWP NO.6839 OF 2021
BHAREPTU RAM ...... PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
459. CWP NO.7171 OF 2021
SANJAY MAYA ...... PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
460. CWP NO.7295 OF 2021
BHUP RAM AND OTHERS ...... PETITIONERS
VERSUS
STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
461. CWP NO.7370 OF 2021
TEDHI SINGH ...... PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
::: Downloaded on - 13/01/2023 20:31:50 :::CIS
78
462. CWP NO.7372 OF 2021
MAN BAHADUR ...... PETITIONER
.
VERSUS
STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
463. CWP NO.7386 OF 2021
BUDHI SINGH ...... PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
464. CWP NO.7478 OF 2021
DHANBIR SINGH ...... PETITIONER
r VERSUS
STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
465. CWP NO.7599 OF 2021
DEEP RAM ...... PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
466. CWP NO.7738 OF 2021
GOVIND RAM ...... PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
467. CWP NO.7950 OF 2021
BALWANT SINGH ...... PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
::: Downloaded on - 13/01/2023 20:31:50 :::CIS
79
468. CWP NO.8004 OF 2021
SUNDER SINGH ...... PETITIONER
.
VERSUS
STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
469. CWP NO.8163 OF 2021
MEMBER SINGH ...... PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
470. CWP NO.8164 OF 2021
SUNAK RAM ...... PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
471. CWP NO.8213 OF 2021
JEET SINGH ...... PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
472. LPA NO.9 OF 2021
STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... APPELLANTS
VERSUS
TILAK CHAND ...... RESPONDENT
473. LPA NO.57 OF 2021
STATE OF HP AND ANOTHER ...... APPELLANTS
VERSUS
RAJENDER PARKASH ...... RESPONDENT
::: Downloaded on - 13/01/2023 20:31:50 :::CIS
80
474. LPA NO.60 OF 2021
JAPAN SINGH ...... APPELLANT
.
VERSUS
CHAUDHARY SARWAN KUMAR HIMACHAL PRADESH VISHVAVIDYALAYA ...... RESPONDENT
475. LPA NO.162 OF 2021 STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... APPELLANTS VERSUS HEM RAJ ...... RESPONDENT
476. EX.PT NO.37 OF 2021 RAJENDER PARKASH ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND ANOTHER ...... RESPONDENTS
477. EX.PT. NO.187 OF 2021 SITA MAYA ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
478. EX.PT. NO.210 OF 2021 PREM LAL ...... PETITIONERS VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
479. EX.PT. NO.239 OF 2021 MAYA ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS ::: Downloaded on - 13/01/2023 20:31:50 :::CIS 81
480. EX.PT. NO.240 OF 2021 KARAN BAHADUR ...... PETITIONER .
VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
481. EX.PT. NO.241 OF 2021 VISHNU MAYA ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
482. EX.PT. NO.243 OF 2021 NISHA ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
483. EX.PT. NO.293 OF 2021 SUNITA ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
484. EX.P.NO.28 OF 2021 in CWP NO.254 OF 2011 HIND NARESH ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
485. EX.P. NO.54 OF 2021 BHUP RAM ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS ::: Downloaded on - 13/01/2023 20:31:50 :::CIS 82
486. CWP NO.118 OF 2022 SAROJ DEVI ...... PETITIONER .
VERSUS THE PROJECT DIRECTOR CUM DEPUTY CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, HIMURJA ...... RESPONDENTS
487. CWP NO.266 OF 2022 SUKH RAM AND ANOTHER ...... PETITIONERS VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
488. CWP NO.520 OF 2022 TULA RAM ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
489. CWP NO.576 OF 2022 RAJINDER SINGH ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
490. CWP NO.764 OF 2022 NARPAT RAM ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
491. CWP NO.802 OF 2022 GANGU RAM ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS ::: Downloaded on - 13/01/2023 20:31:50 :::CIS 83
492. CWP NO.803 OF 2022 MEENA KUMARI ...... PETITIONER .
VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
493. CWP NO.805 OF 2022 BHAJAN DASS ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
494. CWP NO.806 OF 2022 NIRMAN SINGH ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
495. CWP NO.810 OF 2022 SAVITRI DEVI ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
496. CWP NO.814 OF 2022 BIMLA DEVI ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
497. CWP NO.835 OF 2022 SUKH RAM AND OTHERS ...... PETITIONERS VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS ::: Downloaded on - 13/01/2023 20:31:50 :::CIS 84
498. CWP NO.926 OF 2022 NETAR SINGH ...... PETITIONER .
VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
499. CWP NO.1179 OF 2022 SAGRU RAM ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
500. CWP NO.1180 OF 2022 JANAK DEV SHARMA ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
501. CWP NO.1194 OF 2022 SALAM KHAN ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
502. CWP NO.2077 OF 2022 SUNITA DEVI ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
503. CWP NO.2587 OF 2022 PARMINDER SINGH ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS ::: Downloaded on - 13/01/2023 20:31:50 :::CIS 85
504. CWP NO.2593 OF 2022 OM PRAKASH ...... PETITIONER .
VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
505. CWP NO.2597 OF 2022 GITA RAM ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
506. CWP NO.2627 OF 2022 DURGA DASS ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
507. CWP NO.2640 OF 2022 MOHAR SINGH ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
508. CWP NO.2642 OF 2022 RAJ KUMAR AND OTHERS ...... PETITIONERS VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
509. CWP NO.2949 OF 2022 NARAIN SINGH ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS ::: Downloaded on - 13/01/2023 20:31:50 :::CIS 86
510. CWP NO.3013 OF 2022 SANJAY KUMAR ...... PETITIONER .
VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
511. CWP NO.3666 OF 2022 RAJINDER BINDRA ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND ANOTHER ...... RESPONDENTS
512. CWP NO.4253 OF 2022 KANTA DEVI ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
513. CWP NO.4853 OF 2022 NAR BAHADUR ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS 514 CWP NO.4913 OF 2022 SONKI RAM ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
515. CWP NO.4921 OF 2022 PARTAP SINGH ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS ::: Downloaded on - 13/01/2023 20:31:50 :::CIS 87
516. CWP NO.4925 OF 2022 NARAYAN SINGH ...... PETITIONER .
VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
517. CWP NO.4932 OF 2022 VINOD KUMAR ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
518. CWP NO.4933 OF 2022 RAM LOK ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
519. CWP NO.4934 OF 2022 BARDU RAM ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
520. CWP NO.4935 OF 2022 SALIG RAM ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
521. CWP NO.4937 OF 2022 SUBHASH CHAND ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS ::: Downloaded on - 13/01/2023 20:31:50 :::CIS 88
522. CWP NO.4938 OF 2022 LAIQ RAM ...... PETITIONER .
VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
523. CWP NO.4939 OF 2022 RAM DUTT ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
524. CWP NO.4940 OF 2022 PREM LAL ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
525. CWP NO.4950 OF 2022 PYARE LAL ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
526. CWP NO.4994 OF 2022 BIJA RAM ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
527. CWP NO.4995 OF 2022 KHAYLI RAM ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS ::: Downloaded on - 13/01/2023 20:31:50 :::CIS 89
528. CWP NO.5000 OF 2022 GANGA DHAR ...... PETITIONER .
VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
529. CWP NO.5249 OF 2022 PURAN CHAND ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
530. CWP NO.5417 OF 2022 JAI SINGH ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
531. CWP NO.5585 OF 2022 MANOHAR LAL ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
532. CWP NO.5775 OF 2022 SITA RAM ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
533. CWP NO.5780 OF 2022 MOHAN LAL SHARMA ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS ::: Downloaded on - 13/01/2023 20:31:50 :::CIS 90
534. CWP NO.5804 OF 2022 CHHANGU RAM ...... PETITIONER .
VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
535. CWP NO.5859 OF 2022 SHER SINGH ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
536. CWP NO.5869 OF 2022 CHUNI LAL ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
537. CWP NO.5870 OF 2022 UDAY MALHOTRA AND ANOTHER ...... PETITIONERS VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
538. CWP NO.5919 OF 2022 AJMER SINGH ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
539. CWP NO.5920 OF 2022 RAJ KAPOOR ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS ::: Downloaded on - 13/01/2023 20:31:50 :::CIS 91
540. CWP NO.6013 OF 2022 MOHAN LAL ...... PETITIONER .
VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
541. CWP NO.6037 OF 2022 GEETA DEVI ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
542. CWP NO.6039 OF 2022 TULE RAM ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
543. CWP NO.6240 OF 2022 DOLMA ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
544. CWP NO.6297 OF 2022 GHANSHYAM ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
545. CWP NO.6300 OF 2022 SANTOSH SHARMA ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS ::: Downloaded on - 13/01/2023 20:31:50 :::CIS 92
546. CWP NO.6301 OF 2022 GAFOOR AHMAD ...... PETITIONER .
VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
547. CWP NO.6449 OF 2022 JAGDISH CHAND ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
548. CWP NO.6457 OF 2022 SANJEEV KUMAR ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
549. CWP NO.6460 OF 2022 SAROJ KUMARI ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
550. CWP-6609 OF 2022 DAL BAHADUR ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
551. CWP NO.6610 OF 2022 KUMARI SOFIA AND ANOTHER ...... PETITIONERS VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS ::: Downloaded on - 13/01/2023 20:31:50 :::CIS 93
552. CWP NO.6744 OF 2022 PALAS RAM ...... PETITIONER .
VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
553. CWP NO.7655 OF 2022 NARAIN DASS ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
554. CWP NO.7666 OF 2022 DESH RAJ ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
555. CWP NO.7697 OF 2022 SURENDER PAL ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
556. CWP NO.7945 OF 2022 VIJAY KUMAR SHARMA AND ANOTHER ...... PETITIONERS VERSUS STATE OF HP AND ANOTHER ...... RESPONDENTS
557. LPA NO.17 OF 2022 STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... APPELLANTS VERSUS JAI PRAKASH AND ANOTHER ...... RESPONDENTS ::: Downloaded on - 13/01/2023 20:31:50 :::CIS 94
558. LPA NO.32 OF 2022 STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... APPELLANTS .
VERSUS DAULAT RAM AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS
559. LPA NO.33 OF 2022 STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... APPELLANTS VERSUS MISHRU RAM ...... RESPONDENT
560. LPA NO.81 OF 2022 STATE OF HP AND ANOTHER ...... APPELLANTS VERSUS SMT. LALITA THAKUR AND ANOTHER ...... RESPONDENTS
561. LPA NO.137 OF 2022 STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... APPELLANTS VERSUS SANT RAM ...... RESPONDENT
562. LPA NO.161 OF 2022 STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... APPELLANTS VERSUS YASHWANT SINGH AND ANOTHER ...... RESPONDENTS
563. LPA NO.176 OF 2022 THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER HIMURJA AND OTHERS ...... APPELLANTS VERSUS GURBACHAN SINGH ...... RESPONDENT ::: Downloaded on - 13/01/2023 20:31:50 :::CIS 95
564. LPA NO.185 OF 2022 STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... APPELLANTS .
VERSUS JALAM SINGH ...... RESPONDENT
565. LPA NO.186 OF 2022 STATE OF HP AND OTHERS ...... APPELLANTS VERSUS BHIM SEN ...... RESPONDENT _____________________________________________________________ Coram: r The Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.A. Sayed, Chief Justice The Hon'ble Ms. Justice Sabina, Judge.
2Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Ashok Sharma, Advocate General with Mr. Yudhbir Singh Thakur, Deputy Advocate General.
For the Respondents : M/s. Ashwani K. Gupta, Adarsh K. Vashista, Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Surinder Saklani, Abhishek Sharma, Subhash Mohan Snehi, Naresh Kaul, D.K Khanna, Vijay Kumar, Neel Kamal Sood, Suresh Singh Saini, Tanuj Thakur, Sanjeev Kumar Suri, Vishwa Bhushan, Karan Singh Parmar, Advocates and Mr. Ashok Sharma, Advocate General with Mr. Yudhbir Singh Thakur, Deputy Advocate General, for the petitioners in the respective writ petitions. Mr. Ashok Sharma, Senior Advocate with Mr. Tara Singh Chauhan, Advocate, for the petitioner(s)/HPSEB Ltd.
Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, Senior Advocate with M/s.Rahul Mahajan, Avinash Jaryal, Suneel 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
::: Downloaded on - 13/01/2023 20:31:50 :::CIS 96Awasthi, S.C. Sharma, Neel Kamal Sood, Shalini Thakur, Devinder Sharma, Manohar Lal Sharma, Sandeep Chauhan, Devender K. Sharma, Jaidev Thakur, Dalip K. Sharma, Tanuj Thakur, Yogesh .
Kumar Chandel, Sanjay Kumar Sharma, Kul Bhushan Khajuria, Kulwant Chauhan, Naresh Verma, Varun Rana, Vikrant Thakur, Naresh K. Sharma, Naveen K. Bhardwaj, Vinod Thakur, Tara Chand Chauhan, Rangil Singh, Karan Singh Parmar, Advocates, for the private respondents.
Mr. Tek Ram Sharma and Mr. Abhishek Sharma, Advocates, for the respondent-Accountant General.
Sabina, Judge
r to
LPA No. 165/2021 a/w CWP Nos.6245 of 2011, 2097 of 2015, 1946, 2398, 2713, 2763 to 2766, 2769 to 2772, 2804, 2806, 2827, 2828, 2871, 2876 to 2881, 2932, 2973, 2979, 3027, 3042 3054, 3205, 3301, 3304 of 2016, 341, 414, 614, 1136, 2043, 2201 of 2017, 45, 590, 1068, 1069, 1405, 2482, 2650, 2666, 2770, 2795, 2922, 2975, 2976, 2978 to 2982, 3077 of 2018, 64, 88, 109, 168, 176, 185, 245 to 247, 250, 256, 275, 329, 334, 365, 556, 626, 706, 826, 838, 886, 1065, 1196, 1232, 1235, 1317, 1396, 1493 to 1496, 1716, 2053, 2118, 2119, 2193, 2481, 2671, 2673 to 2677, 2682 to 2686, 2835, 3551, 3600, 3601, 3790 to 3793, 4130, 4200, 4328 of 2019, CWPOA Nos. 292, 294, 417, 1032, 2680, 4950, 5004, 5006, 5017, 5101, 5108, 5110, 5112, 5215, 5376, 5527, 5530, 5688, 5792, 5798, 5847, 5857, 5971, 6119, 6135, 6202, 6256, 6278, 6284, 6290, 6336, 6540, 6685, 7085, 7089, 7171, 7250, 7760, 7762, 7837, 7850 of 2019, CWP Nos. 117, 493, 715, 751, 809, 1162, 1164, 2394, 2404, 2417, 2466, 2467, 2471, 2560, 2561, 2562, 2564 to 2567, 2915, 2963, 2987, 3014, 3037, 3143, 3144, 3371, 3424, 3653, 3900, 3904, 3972, 3992, 4036, 4061, 4064, 4136, 4171, 4247, 4272, 4289, 4549, 4662, 4779, 4781, 4786, 4788, 4892, 4897, 4898, 5193, 5194, 5218 5417, 5457, 5480 to 5482, 5487, 5489, 5500, 5546, 5584, 5620, 5660, 5712, 6079 of 2020 CWPOA No. 19, 25, 66, 1328, 1968, 3042, 3214, 3300, 3304, 4347, 5316, 5346, 5549, 5624, 5626, 5642, 5700, 5703, 5707, 5709. 5728, 5729, 5732, 5735, 5747, 5749, 5752, 5757, 5988, 6996 of 2020, CWP Nos. 19, 29, 37, ::: Downloaded on - 13/01/2023 20:31:50 :::CIS 97 60, 63 to 62, 73, 74, 117, 198, 206, 208, 244, 278, 314, 324, 327, 476, 783, 830, 835, 876, 936, 938, 942, 949, 1156, 1159 to 1169, 1175 to 1178, 1182, 1183, 1187, 1189, 1190, 1252, 1254, 1257, 1300, 1304, 1371, 1373, .
1377, 1379, 1400, 1409, 1446, 1521, 1523, 1524, 1591, 1592, 1593, 1595,1595, 1599, 1602 to 1604, 1637, 1666, 1718 to 1720 1726, 1727, 1729, 1752, 1754, 1777, 1787, 1803, 1804, 1957, 2105, 2409, 2482, 2966, 3103, 3171, 3185, 3720, 3751, 4182, 4183, 4249, 4254, 4384, 4542, 4547, 4551, 4863, 5154, 5906, 5923, 5926, 5950, 6259, 6261, 6508, 6511, 6512, 6604, 6746, 7171, 7295, 7372, 7478, 7599, 7950, 8004 of 2021 LPA No.57, 162 of 2021, CWP Nos.118, 266, 576, 764, 802, 803, 805, 806, 810, 814, 835, 926, 1179, 1180, 1194, 2434, 2587, 2593, 2627, 2640, 2642, 2949, 3013, 3486, 3666, 4082, 4253, 4913, 4925, 5044, 5249, 5585, 5780, 5859, 5869, 5870, 5919, 5920, 6013, 6037, 6039, 6240, 6297, 6300, 6449, 6457, 6460, 6609, 6610, 6744, 7655, 7666, 7697 of 2022, LPA No. 17, 32, 33, 137, 161 of 2022.
Vide this judgment the above mentioned cases would be disposed of, as the issue involved in all the cases is the same.
2. The moot question involved in the present cases is, as to whether a daily wager is liable to be conferred work charge status after completion of 8 years of service.
3. Letters Patent Appeal No.165 of 2021 is taken as the lead case.
Hence, the facts arising from this appeal have been taken up for discussion.
4. The case of the respondents/petitioners, in brief, is that the respondents had filed Original Application No.2648 of 2016 before the Himachal Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal, seeking the same relief as granted in CWP(T) No.12217 of 2008, titled as Ashok Kumar vs. State of H.P., decided on 24.8.2012.
::: Downloaded on - 13/01/2023 20:31:50 :::CIS 985. The case of the respondents (Surajmani and another), was that they had joined the Department in the year, 1994 and had been regularized in the .
year, 2007 instead of regularizing them after they had completed 8 years service on daily wage basis. The respondents had filed CWP No.5724 of 2013 and the same was disposed of with a direction to the Department to consider the case of the respondents in terms of the decision of this Court dated 28.7.2010, passed in CWP No.2735 of 2010 titled Rakesh Kumar vs. State of H.P. and others alongwith connected matters. The Department instead of considering the case of the respondents, in terms of the decision given in Rakesh Kumar's case supra, rejected their representation vide order dated 4.12.2015 on the ground that there was no work charge establishment in the Forest Department. Junior to the respondents had filed Original Application before the Himachal Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal in the year, 2007 and the same was transferred to this Court after abolition of the Tribunal and this Court ordered in CWP(T) No.12217 of 2008 titled Ashok Kumar vs. State of H.P. & others, vide order dated 24.8.2012 that the Department should consider the case of Ashok Kumar for regularization after completion of 8 years of daily wage service rendered by him as a Driver. Hence, respondents were liable to be regularized when services of their junior, Ashok Kumar were regularized.
6. Appellants-Department in its reply averred that respondent No.1 was initially engaged as a casual labourer in the year, 1985 and had worked intermittently thereafter with the Department. Respondent No.1 had continuously worked in the Department w.e.f. 1994 till 2006 with minimum ::: Downloaded on - 13/01/2023 20:31:50 :::CIS 99 240 days in each calendar year. Services of respondent No.1 were regularized as a Forest Worker vide order dated 10.10.2007. Respondent .
No.2 was initially engaged as a casual labourer in the year, 1988 and had worked intermittently up to the year, 1993. Respondent No.2 had also been working continuously with the Department w.e.f. 1994 onwards till 2006 with minimum 240 days in each calendar year and his services were also regularized vide order dated 10.10.2007. The respondents had filed CWP No.5724 of 2013 in this Court for grant of work charge status after completion of 8 years of service in terms of the decision given in Rakesh Kumar's case supra. The case of the respondents was duly examined in terms of the decision given by this Court in Rakesh Kumar's case supra and it was rejected on the ground that the Forest Department was not a work charge establishment.
7. After the abolition of the Tribunal, the Original Application filed by the respondents was transferred to this Court. Learned Single Judge, vide order dated 6.3.2021, allowed the writ petition (CWPOA No.7713 of 2019), filed by the respondents. Hence, appeal has been filed by the State, challenging the order dated 6.3.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge.
8. The learned Single Judge, while allowing the writ petition, held that for conferring work charge status, a daily wage employee was required to complete 8 years of service with the Department with completing 240 days of service in each calendar year. Learned Single Judge has noticed the information supplied by the Public Information Officer-cum-Divisional Forest ::: Downloaded on - 13/01/2023 20:31:50 :::CIS 100 Officer, Nachan Forest Division, Gohar and as per the same, various persons had been granted work charge status in the Forest Department.
.
9. A perusal of the list reveals that, although, the employees had been regularized at a later date, but they had been granted work charge status from prior date. For example, Devi Singh, Sweeper, in view of the writ petition filed by him, had been granted regularization w.e.f. 12.9.2006 and work charge status was granted to him w.e.f. 1.1.2001. Thus, various employees, who had filed writ petitions, had been granted work charge status from prior date of their regularization. Noticing the said document, learned Single Judge held that the case of the respondents could not be discriminated on the ground that the Forest Department was not a work charge establishment.
10. The learned Single Judge held as under:-
"7. However, the afore made submission, cannot be accepted by this Court, as, a perusal of a signatured information purveyed to the petitioners by the PIO-cum-
DFO, Nachan Forest Division, Gohar, rather displays that the employer had conferred, upon, the workmen, as, detailed therein, the apposite work charge status, Consequently, the afore dis-similar treatment meted by the respondents, to the petitioners rather tantamounts to discrimination becoming meted upon them, and, thereupon breach of mandate of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India becomes aroused. Necessarily, the afore breach has to be undone, and, it is hence undone, through the respondents being directed, to, after the impugned Annexure becoming annulled, put the workmen/petitioners, in a work charge capacity, from the date of theirs ::: Downloaded on - 13/01/2023 20:31:50 :::CIS 101 completing the apposite period, of qualifying service, as, daily rated workman, in as much as, from the date both of them completing 240 days of continuous service, in each, of .
the apposite preceding thereto 8 calendar years.
9. In view of the above, the present petition is allowed. All pending applications stand disposed of accordingly."
11. The issue involved in the present cases has been coming up for consideration before this Court as well as before the Hon'ble Supreme Court from time to time to redress the grievances of the daily wage employees.
12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mool Raj Upadhyaya vs. State of H.P. and others, 1994 Supp (2) SCC 316, while dealing with the Scheme framed by the Government with regard to the daily wage workers being brought on Work Charge Cadre, modified the Scheme as under:-
"4.Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, we modify the said scheme by substituting paragraphs 1 to 4 of the same by the following paragraphs:
"(1) Daily-wage/muster-roll workers, whether skilled or unskilled, who have completed 10 years or more of continuous service with a minimum of 240 days in a calendar year on 31- 12-1993, shall be appointed as work-charged employees with effect from 1-1-1994 and shall be put in the time-
scale of pay applicable to the corresponding lowest grade in the Government; (2) daily-wage/muster-roll workers, whether skilled or unskilled, who have not completed 10 years of continuous service with a minimum of 240 days in a calendar year on 31-12-1993, shall be ::: Downloaded on - 13/01/2023 20:31:50 :::CIS 102 appointed as work-charged employees with effect from the date they complete the said period of 10 years of service and on such appointment they .
shall be put in the time- scale of pay applicable to the lowest grade in the Government; (3) daily-wage/muster-roll workers, whether skilled or unskilled who have not completed 10 years of service with a minimum of 240 days in a calendar year on 31-12-1993, shall be paid daily wages at the rates prescribed by the Government of Himachal Pradesh from time to time for daily- wage employees falling in Class III and Class IV till they are appointed as work-charged employees in accordance with paragraph 2;
(4) daily-wage/muster-roll workers shall be regularised in a phased manner on the basis of seniority-cum-suitability including physical fitness.
On regularisation they shall be put in the minimum of the time-scale payable to the corresponding lowest grade applicable to the Government and would be entitled to all other benefits available to regular government servants of the corresponding grade."
13. Mr. Ashok Sharma, learned Advocate General has submitted that so far as Administrative Tribunals are concerned, the aggrieved employee could approach the Tribunal within the prescribed period of limitation. However, in the present case, the employees had approached the Tribunal much beyond the period of limitation vis-à-vis cause of action having arising to them. Even otherwise the claims of the employees were liable to be rejected on the ground of delay and laches.
::: Downloaded on - 13/01/2023 20:31:50 :::CIS 10314. In support of his arguments, learned Advocate General has placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in D.C.S. Negi vs. .
Union of India, (2018) 16 SCC 721, wherein, it has been held as under:-
"12. Before parting with the case, we consider it necessary to note that for quite some time, the Administrative Tribunals established under the Act have been entertaining and deciding the applications filed under Section 19 of the Act in complete disregard of the mandate of Section 21, which reads as under:-
"21. Limitation.--(1) A Tribunal shall not admit an application,--
(a) in a case where a final order such as is mentioned in clause (a) of sub-section (2) of section 20 has been made in connection with the grievance unless the application is made, within one year from the date on which such final order has been made;
(b) in a case where an appeal or representation such as is mentioned in clause (b) of sub-section (2) of section 20 has been made and a period of six months had expired thereafter without such final order having been made, within one year from the date of expiry of the said period of six months.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), where--
(a) the grievance in respect of which an application is made had arisen by reason of any order made at any time during the period of three years immediately preceding the date on which the jurisdiction, powers and authority of the ::: Downloaded on - 13/01/2023 20:31:50 :::CIS 104 Tribunal becomes exercisable under this Act in respect of the matter to which such order relates;
and .
(b) no proceedings for the redressal of such grievance had been commenced before the said date before any High Court, the application shall be entertained by the Tribunal if it is made within the period referred to in clause (a), or, as the case may be, clause (b), of sub-section (1) or within a period of six months from the said date, whichever period expires later.
(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) or sub-section (2), an application may be admitted after the period of one year specified in clause (a) or clause (b) of sub-section (1) or, as the case may be, the period of six months specified in sub-section (2), if the applicant satisfies the Tribunal that he had sufficient cause for not making the application within such period."
13. A reading of the plain language of the above reproduced section makes it clear that the Tribunal cannot admit an application unless the same is made within the time specified in clauses (a) and (b) of Section 21(1) or Section 21(2) Or an order is passed in terms of sub-section (3) for entertaining the application after the prescribed period. Since Section 21(1) is couched in negative form, it is the duty of the Tribunal to first consider whether the application is within limitation. An application can be admitted only if the same is found to have been made within the prescribed period or sufficient cause is shown for not doing so within the prescribed period and an order is passed under Section 21(3)."
::: Downloaded on - 13/01/2023 20:31:50 :::CIS 10515. Learned Advocate General has also placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Secy. to Govt. of India v. Shivram .
Mahadu Gaikwad, 1995 Supp (3) SCC 231, wherein, it has been held as under:-
"2. The learned counsel for the Union of India raised a preliminary contention, namely, that the application was filed almost after about four years from the date of discharge and, therefore, it was clearly barred by Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. He pointed out that this question was squarely raised in the counter filed in answer to the respondent's application in the following terms:
"These respondents state that the applicant herein is challenging the order dated 7-10-1986 discharging him from the service and has filed this application on 14-9-1990, as such this application is barred by the provisions of limitation under Section 21 of the Central Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985."
When we turn to the judgment of the Tribunal we find that there is no mention about the question of limitation even though it stared in the face. It would immediately occur to anyone that since the order of discharge was of 7-10-1986 and the application was filed in 1990, it was clearly barred by limitation unless an application for condoning the delay was made under Section 21(3) of the Administrative Tribunals Act. No such application was in fact made. Even if it was the contention of the employee that he was suffering from schizophrenia, that could have been projected as a ground for condonation of delay under sub-section (3) of Section 21 of the said statute. Even otherwise without insisting on the formality of an application under Section 21(3) if the Tribunal ::: Downloaded on - 13/01/2023 20:31:50 :::CIS 106 had dealt with the question of limitation in the context of Section 21 we may have refrained from interfering with the order of the Tribunal under Article 136, but it seems that the .
Tribunal totally overlooked this question which clearly stared in the face. Even the employee made no effort to explain the delay and seek condonation. We find no valid explanation on record for coming to the conclusion that the case for condonation of delay is made out. In the circumstances, there is no doubt that the application was clearly barred by limitation. It is also difficult to understand how the Tribunal could have awarded full back wages even for the period of delay for which the employee was solely responsible. However, since application itself is barred by limitation under Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, it deserves to be dismissed."
16. Learned Advocate General has also placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Administrator of Union Territory of Daman and Diu v. R.D. Valand, 1995 Supp (4) SCC 593, wherein, it has been held as under:-
"4. We are of the view that the Tribunal was not justified in interfering with the stale claim of the respondent. He was promoted to the post of Junior Engineer in the year 1979 with effect from 28-9-1972. A cause of action, if any, had arisen to him at that time. He slept over the matter till 1985 when he made representation to the Administration. The said representation was rejected on 8-10-1986. Thereafter for four years the respondent did not approach any court and finally he filed the present application before the Tribunal in March 1990. In the facts and circumstances of this case, the Tribunal was not justified in putting the clock back by more ::: Downloaded on - 13/01/2023 20:31:50 :::CIS 107 than 15 years. The Tribunal fell into patent error in brushing aside the question of limitation by observing that the respondent has been making representations from time to .
time and as such the limitation would not come in his way."
17. Learned Advocate General has further placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Orissa v. Chandra Sekhar Mishra, (2002) 10 SCC 583, wherein, it has been held as under:-
"4. In our opinion, there were two fundamental errors in that relief being granted to the respondent. Firstly, the services of the respondent were terminated with effect from 31-1-1978 and the respondent did not approach the Tribunal within the period of limitation provided by the statute. On this ground alone, the Tribunal should not have entertained the appeal. Secondly, the respondent was appointed on 1-2-1972 on contract basis for a period of three years. This period of contract was extended up to 31-1-1978. When the respondent was only a contractual employee, there could be no question of his being granted the relief of being directed to be appointed as a regular employee."
18. Learned Advocate General has further placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in E. Parmasivan v. Union of India, (2003) 12 SCC 270, wherein, it has been held as under:-
"2. The petitioners in this case, who are fifteen in number, are retired officers of the Military Engineering Services in the Ministry of Defence, Government of India. They retired from service between 31-1-1974 to 31-5-1985 while holding posts of Senior Administrative Officer (SAO) or Senior Barrack Store Officer (SBSO) or Principal Barrack Store Officer (PBSO). They filed original application, OA No ::: Downloaded on - 13/01/2023 20:31:50 :::CIS 108 1935 of 1995 in the Central Administrative Tribunal (for short "CAT), Principal Bench, Delhi, claiming fixation of their pay on promotion in terms of the concordance table notified in .
the Ministry of Defence OM dated 12-1-1976. The main basis of their case is that in similar cases, OAS Nos. 211 and 498 of 1986, the Principal Bench, CAT by judgment rendered on 13-11-1992 directed the Union of India and the officers concerned to treat the applicants therein as entitled to pay fixation in terms of the aforesaid OM. The applicants also cited the judgments of Benches of CAT at a different place wherein relief had been granted to similarly placed officers of the MES cadre. The Tribunal by its judgment dated 6-2-1996 dismissed the original application on the ground that it is barred by limitation. The Tribunal rejected the contention raised on behalf of the petitioners that the grievance made by them in the case is continuing and the cause of action for the application is a continuing cause of action, in such a case question of limitation does not stand in the way of the claim made by them. As noted above all the petitioners had retired from the service long before the judgment of the Principal Bench, CAT, dated 13-11-1992. In the judgments of different Benches of CAT copies of which have been placed on record in the case the applicants were officers in service. The anomaly in the scale of pay of the petitioners arose as early as on 12-1-1976 when the Government of India declined to extend the revised scale of pay in terms of the concordance table to members of the cadres of the Store Officers and Administrative Officers. Therefore the petitioners would have raised objection regarding the anomaly in their scale of pay at that point of time. Even thereafter when they retired from the service they could have made the claim for pay fixation in terms of the ::: Downloaded on - 13/01/2023 20:31:50 :::CIS 109 concordance table and for calculation of pension on that basis. They did not take any step in that regard till 1995.
3. In the circumstances of the case the Tribunal, in our .
view, was right in holding that the original application filed by the petitioners was barred by limitation and hence no relief as claimed by them could be granted to them. Thus the petition being devoid of merit is dismissed."
19. Learned Advocate General has also placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Karnataka v. S.M. Kotrayya, (1996) 6 SCC 267, wherein, it has been held as under:-
"7. A reading of the said section would indicate that sub-
section (1) of Section 21 provides for limitation for redressal of the grievances in clauses (a) and (b) and specifies the period of one year. Sub-section (2) amplifies the limitation of one year in respect of grievances covered under clauses (a) and (b) and an outer limit of six months in respect of grievances covered by sub- section (2) is provided. Sub- section (3) postulates that notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) or sub-section (2), if the applicants satisfy the Tribunal that they had sufficient cause for not making the applications within such period enumerated in sub-sections (1) and (2) from the date of application, the Tribunal has been given power to condone the delay, on satisfying itself that the applicants have satisfactorily explained the delay in filing the applications for redressal of their grievances. When sub- section (2) has given power (sic right) for making applications within one year of the grievances covered under clauses (a) and (b) of sub-section (1) and within the outer limit of six months in respect of the grievances covered under sub-section (2), there is no need for the applicant to give any explanation to ::: Downloaded on - 13/01/2023 20:31:50 :::CIS 110 the delay having occurred during that period. They are entitled, as a matter of right, to invoke the jurisdiction of the court for redressal of their grievances. If the applications .
come to be filed beyond that period, then the need to give satisfactory explanation for the delay caused till date of filing of the application must be given and then the question of satisfaction of the Tribunal in that behalf would arise. Sub- section (3) starts with a non obstante clause which rubs out the effect of sub-section (2) of Section 21 and the need thereby arises to give satisfactory explanation for the delay which occasioned after the expiry of the period prescribed in sub-sections (1) and (2) thereof."
20. Learned Advocate General has also submitted that the cases filed by the aggrieved employees were also liable to be rejected on the ground of delay and laches.
21. In support of his arguments, learned Advocate General has placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in C. Jacob v.
Director of Geology and Mining, (2008) 10 SCC 115, wherein, it has been held as under:-
"8. Let us take the hypothetical case of an employer who is terminated from service in 1980. He does not challenge the termination. But nearly two decades later, say in the year 2000, he decides to challenge the termination. He is aware that any such challenge would be rejected at the threshold on the ground of delay (if the application is made before tribunal) or on the ground of delay and laches (if a writ petition is filed before a High Court). Therefore, instead of challenging the termination, he gives a representation requesting that he may be taken back to service. Normally, ::: Downloaded on - 13/01/2023 20:31:50 :::CIS 111 there will be considerable delay in replying to such representations relating to old matters. Taking advantage of this position, the ex-employee files an application/writ .
petition before the tribunal/High Court seeking a direction to the employer to consider and dispose of his representation. The tribunals/High Courts routinely allow or dispose of such applications/petitions (many a time even without notice to the other side), without examining the matter on merits, with a direction to consider and dispose of the representation.
9. The courts/tribunals proceed on the assumption, that every citizen deserves a reply to his representation. Secondly, they assume that a mere direction to consider and dispose of the representation does not involve any "decision"
on rights and obligations of parties. Little do they realise the consequences of such a direction to "consider". If the representation is considered and accepted, the ex-employee gets a relief, which he would not have got on account of the long delay, all by reason of the direction to "consider". If the representation is considered and rejected, the ex-employee files an application/writ petition, not with reference to the original cause of action of 1982, but by treating the rejection of the representation given in 2000, as the cause of action. A prayer is made for quashing the rejection of representation and for grant of the relief claimed in the representation. The tribunals/High Courts routinely entertain such applications/petitions ignoring the huge delay preceding the representation, and proceed to examine the claim on merits and grant relief. In this manner, the bar of limitation or the laches gets obliterated or ignored.
10. ... ... ...
11. When a direction is issued by a court/tribunal to consider or deal with the representation, usually the directee (person ::: Downloaded on - 13/01/2023 20:31:50 :::CIS 112 directed) examines the matter on merits, being under the impression that failure to do so may amount to disobedience. When an order is passed considering and rejecting the claim .
or representation, in compliance with direction of the court or tribunal, such an order does not revive the stale claim, nor amount to some kind of "acknowledgement of a jural relationship" to give rise to a fresh cause of action.
13. Where an employee unauthorisedly absents himself and suddenly appears after 20 years and demands that he should be taken back and approaches the court, the department naturally will not or may not have any record relating to the employee at that distance of time. In such cases, when the employer fails to produce the records of the enquiry and the order of dismissal/removal, court cannot draw an adverse inference against the employer for not producing records, nor direct reinstatement with back wages for 20 years, ignoring the cessation of service or the lucrative alternative employment of the employee. Misplaced sympathy in such matters will encourage indiscipline, lead to unjust enrichment of the employee at fault and result in drain of public exchequer. Many a time there is also no application of mind as to the extent of financial burden, as a result of a routine order for back wages.
14. We are constrained to refer to the several facets of the issue only to emphasise the need for circumspection and care in issuing directions for "consideration". If the representation on the face of it is stale, or does not contain particulars to show that it is regarding a live claim, courts should desist from directing "consideration" of such claims.
15. The present case is a typical example "representation and relief". The petitioner keeps quiet for 18 years after the termination. A stage is reached when no record is available ::: Downloaded on - 13/01/2023 20:31:50 :::CIS 113 regarding his previous service. In the representations which he makes in 2000, he claims that he should be taken back to service. But on rejection of the said representation by order .
9-4-2002, he filed a writ petition claiming service benefits, by referring the said order of rejection as the cause of action. As noticed above, the learned Single Judge examined the claim, as if it was a live claim made in time, finds fault with the respondents for not producing material to show that termination was preceded by due enquiry and declares the termination as illegal. But as the petitioner has already reached the age of superannuation, the learned Single Judge grants the relief of pension with effect from 18-7-1982, by deeming that he was retired from service on that day. We fail to understand how the learned Single Judge could declare a termination in 1982 as illegal in a writ petition filed in 2005. We fail to understand how the learned Single Judge could find fault with the Department of Mines and Geology, for failing to prove that a termination made in 1982, was preceded by an enquiry in a proceedings initiated after 22 years, when the Department in which the petitioner had worked had been wound up as long back as in 1983 itself and the new Department had no records of his service.
22. Learned Advocate General has also placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. M.K. Sarkar, (2010) 2 SCC 59, wherein, it has been held as under:-
"14. The order of the Tribunal allowing the first application of respondent without examining the merits, and directing the appellants to consider his representation has given rise to unnecessary litigation and avoidable complications. The ill effects of such directions have been considered by this Court in C. Jacob v. Director of Geology and Mining [(2008) ::: Downloaded on - 13/01/2023 20:31:50 :::CIS 114 10 SCC 115: (2008) 2 SCC (L&S) 961: (SCC pp. 122-23, para 9).
"9. The courts/tribunals proceed on the .
assumption, that every citizen deserves a reply to his representation. Secondly, they assume that a mere direction to consider and dispose of the representation does not involve any 'decision' on rights and obligations of parties. Little do they realise the consequences of such a direction to 'consider'. If the representation is considered and accepted, the ex-employee gets a relief, which he would not have got on account of the long delay, all by reason of the direction to 'consider'. If the representation is considered and rejected, the ex-
employee files an application/writ petition, not with reference to the original cause of action of 1982, but by treating the rejection of the representation given in 2000, as the cause of action. A prayer is made for quashing the rejection of representation and for grant of the relief claimed in the representation. The tribunals/High Courts routinely entertain such applications/petitions ignoring the huge delay preceding the representation, and proceed to examine the claim on merits and grant relief. In this manner, the bar of limitation or the laches gets obliterated or ignored."
23. Learned Advocate General has further placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. A. Durairaj, (2010) 14 SCC 389, wherein, it has been held as under:-
"13. It is well settled that anyone who feels aggrieved by non-promotion or non- selection should approach the ::: Downloaded on - 13/01/2023 20:31:50 :::CIS 115 court/tribunal as early as possible. If a person having a justifiable grievance allows the matter to become stale and approaches the court/tribunal belatedly, grant of any relief on .
the basis of such belated application would lead to serious administrative complications to the employer and difficulties to the other employees as it will upset the settled position regarding seniority and promotions which has been granted to others over the years. Further, where a claim is raised beyond a decade or two from the date of cause of action, the employer will be at a great disadvantage to effectively contest or counter the claim, as the officers who dealt with the matter and/or the relevant records relating to the matter may no longer be available. Therefore, even if no period of limitation is prescribed, any belated challenge would be liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches.
14. This is a typical case where an employee gives a representation in a matter which is stale and old, after two decades and gets a direction of the Tribunal to consider and dispose of the same; and thereafter again approaches the Tribunal alleging that there is delay in disposal of the representation (or if there is an order rejecting the representation, then file an application to challenge the rejection, treating the date of rejection of the representation as the date of cause of action).
15. This Court had occasion to examine such situations in Union of India v. M.K. Sarkar [(2010) 2 SCC 59: (2010) 1 SCC (L&S) 1126] and held as follows: (SCC p. 66. paras 14-
16).
"14. The order of the Tribunal allowing the first application of respondent without examining the merits, and directing the appellants to consider his ::: Downloaded on - 13/01/2023 20:31:50 :::CIS 116 representation has given rise to unnecessary litigation and avoidable complications.
15. When a belated representation in regard to a .
'stale' or 'dead' issue/dispute is considered and decided, in compliance with a direction by the court/tribunal to do so, the date of such decision cannot be considered as furnishing a fresh cause of action for reviving the 'dead' issue or time- barred dispute. The issue of limitation or delay and laches should be considered with reference to the original cause of action and not with reference to the date on which an order is passed in compliance with a court's direction. Neither a court's direction to consider a representation issued without examining the merits, nor a decision given in compliance with such direction, will extend the limitation, or erase the delay and laches.
16 A court or tribunal, before directing 'consideration' of a claim or representation should examine whether the claim or representation is with reference to a 'live' issue or whether it is with reference to a 'dead' or 'stale' issue. If it is with reference to a 'dead' or 'stale' issue or dispute, the court/tribunal should put an end to the matter and should not direct consideration or reconsideration. If the court or tribunal deciding to direct 'consideration' without itself examining the merits, it should make it clear that such consideration will be without prejudice to any contention relating to limitation or delay and laches. Even if the court ::: Downloaded on - 13/01/2023 20:31:50 :::CIS 117 does not expressly say so, that would be the legal position and effect"
.
24. Learned Advocate General has further placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Uttaranchal v. Shiv Charan Singh Bhandari, (2013) 12 SCC 179, wherein, it has been held as under:-
"14. The centripodal issue that really warrants to be dwelled upon is whether the respondents could have been allowed to maintain a claim petition before the Tribunal after a lapse of almost two decades inasmuch as the said Madhav Singh Tadagi, a junior employee, was conferred the benefit of ad hoc promotion from 15-11-1983. It is not in dispute that the respondents were aware of the same. There is no cavil over the fact that they were senior to Madhav Singh Tadagi in the SAS Group III and all of them were considered for regular promotion in the year, 1989 and after their regular promotion their seniority position had been maintained. We have stated so as their inter se seniority in the promotional cadre has not been affected. Therefore, the grievance in singularity is non- conferment of promotional benefit from the date when the junior was promoted on ad hoc basis on 15-11-1983.
15. It can be stated with certitude that when a junior in the cadre is conferred with the benefit of promotion ignoring the seniority of an employee without any rational basis the person aggrieved can always challenge the same in an appropriate forum, for he has a right to be considered even for ad hoc promotion and a junior cannot be allowed to march over him solely on the ground that the promotion granted is ad hoc in nature. Needless to emphasise that if the senior is found unfit for some reason or the other, the ::: Downloaded on - 13/01/2023 20:31:50 :::CIS 118 matter would be quite different. But, if senior incumbents are eligible as per the rules and there is no legal justification to ignore them, the employer cannot extend the promotional .
benefit to a junior on ad hoc basis at his whim or caprice.
That is not permissible.
16. ... ... ...
17. In C. Jacob v. Director of Geology and Mining [C. Jacob v. Director of Geology and Mining, (2008) 10 SCC 115:
(2008) 2 SCC (L&S) 961] a two-Judge Bench was dealing with the concept of representations and the directions issued by the court or tribunal to consider the representations and the challenge to the said rejection thereafter. In that context, the Court has expressed thus: (SCC p. 123, para 10).
"10. Every representation to the Government for relief, may not be replied on merits.
Representations relating to matters which have become stale or barred by limitation, can be rejected on that ground alone, without examining the merits of the claim. In regard to representations unrelated to the Department, the reply may be only to inform that the matter did not concern the Department or to inform the appropriate Department. Representations with incomplete particulars may be replied by seeking relevant particulars. The replies to such representations, cannot furnish a fresh cause of action or revive a stale or dead claim."
18. In Union of India v. M.K Sarkar [(2010) 2 SCC 59: (2010) 1 SCC (L&S) 1126] this Court after referring to C. Jacob [C. Jacob v. Director of Geology and Mining. (2008) 10 SCC 115: (2008) 2 SCC (L&S) 961] has ruled that: (SCC p. 66, para 15).
::: Downloaded on - 13/01/2023 20:31:50 :::CIS 119"15. When a belated representation in regard to a 'stale' or 'dead' issue/dispute is and decided, in compliance with a direction by the court/tribunal to .
do so, the date of such decision cannot be considered as furnishing a fresh cause of action for reviving the 'dead' issue or time-barred dispute.
The issue of limitation or delay and laches should be considered with reference to the original cause of action and not with reference to the date on which an order is passed in compliance with a court's direction. Neither a court's direction to consider a representation issued without examining the merits, nor a decision given in compliance with such direction, will extend the limitation, or erase the delay and laches."
19. From the aforesaid authorities it is clear as crystal that even if the court or tribunal directs for consideration of representations relating to a stale claims or dead grievance it does not give rise to a fresh cause of action. The dead cause of action cannot rise like a phoenix. Similarly, a mere submission of representation to the competent authority does not arrest time.
20. In Karnataka Power Corpn. Ltd. v. K. Thangappan [(2006) 4 SCC 322: 2006 SCC (L&S), 791] the Court took note of the factual position and laid down that when nearly for two decades the respondent workmen therein had remained silent mere making of representations could not justify a belated approach.
21. In State of Orissa v. Pyarimohan Samantaray [(1977) 3 SCC 396: 1977 SCC (L&S) 424] it has been opined that making of repeated representations is not a satisfactory explanation of delay. The said principle was reiterated in ::: Downloaded on - 13/01/2023 20:31:50 :::CIS 120 State of Orissa v. Arun Kumar Patnaik (1976) 3 SCC 579:
1976 SCC (L&S) 468].
.
22. In BSNL v. Ghanshyam Dass (2) [(2011) 4 SCC 374:
(2011) 2 SCC (Civ) 268: (2011) 1 SCC (L&S) 685] a three-
Judge Bench of this Court reiterated the principle stated in Jagdish Lal v. State of Haryana [(1997) 6 SCC 538: 1997 SCC (L&S) 1550] and proceeded to observe that as the respondents therein preferred to sleep over their rights and approached the Tribunal in 1997, they would not get the benefit of the order dated 7-7-1992 [Santosh Kapoor v. Union of India, OA No. 1455 of 1991, order dated 7-7-1992 (CAT)].
23. In State of T.N. v. Seshachalam [(2007) 10 SCC 137:
(2008) 1 SCC (L&S) 475] this Court, testing the equality clause on the bedrock of delay and laches pertaining to grant of service benefit, has ruled thus: (SCC p. 145, para
16).
"16. ... filing of representations alone would not save the period of limitation. Delay or laches is a relevant factor for a court of law to determine the question as to whether the claim made by an applicant deserves consideration. Delay and/or laches on the part of a government servant may deprive him of the benefit which had been given to others. Article 14 of the Constitution of India would not, in a situation of that nature, be attracted as it is well known that law leans in favour of those who are alert and vigilant."
24. There can be no cavil over the fact that the claim of promotion is based on the concept of equality and equitability, but the said relief has to be claimed within a ::: Downloaded on - 13/01/2023 20:31:50 :::CIS 121 reasonable time. The said principle has been stated in Ghulam Rasool Lone v. State of J&K [(2009) 15 SCC 321:
(2010) 1 SCC (L&S) 539].
.
25. ... ... ...
26. Presently, sitting in a time machine, we may refer to a two-Judge Bench decision in P.S. Sadasivaswamy v. State of T.N. [(1975) 1 SCC 152: 1975 SCC (L&S) 22], wherein it has been laid down that: (SCC p. 154, para 2.
"2. .... A person aggrieved by an order of promoting a junior over his head should approach the Court at least within six months or at the most a year of such promotion. It is not that there is any period of limitation for the courts to exercise their powers under Article 226 nor is it that there can never be a case where the courts cannot interfere in a matter after the passage of a certain length of time. But it would be a sound and wise exercise of discretion for the courts to refuse to exercise their extraordinary powers under Article 226 in the case of persons who do not approach it expeditiously for relief and who stand by and allow things to happen and then approach the Court to put forward stale claims and try to unsettle settled matters."
27. ... ... ...
28. Remaining oblivious to the factum of delay and laches and granting relief is contrary to all settled principles and even would not remotely attract the concept of discretion. We may hasten to add that the same may not be applicable in all circumstances where certain categories of fundamental rights are infringed. But, a stale claim of getting promotional ::: Downloaded on - 13/01/2023 20:31:50 :::CIS 122 benefits definitely should not have been entertained by the Tribunal and accepted by the High Court.
29. True it is, notional promotional benefits have been .
granted but the same is likely to affect the State exchequer regard being had to the fixation of pay and the pension. These aspects have not been taken into consideration. What is urged before by the leaned counsel for the respondents is that they should have been equally treated with Mahadev Singh Tadagi. But equality has to be claimed at the right juncture and not after expiry of two decades. Not for nothing, has it been said that everything may stop but not the time for all are in a way slaves of time. There may not be any provision providing for limitation but a grievance relating to promotion cannot be given a new lease of life any point of time.
30. We will be failing in our duty if we do not state something about the benefit of promotion conferred on the junior employee. We have been apprised by the learned counsel for the State that the promotion extended to him on 15-11- 1983 has been cancelled and, as further put forth by the learned counsel for the respondents, the same is under assail before the High Court. The said Mahadev Singh Tadagi was neither a party before the Tribunal nor before the High Court and he is also not a party before this Court. As presently advised, we refrain ourselves from expressing any opinion on the cancellation of promotion and the repercussions of the same. As the matter is sub judice before the High Court, suffice it to say that the High Court shall deal with the same in accordance with the settled principles of law in that regard. We say no more on the said score. However, we irrefragably come to hold that the direction given by the Tribunal which has been concurred ::: Downloaded on - 13/01/2023 20:31:50 :::CIS 123 with by the High Court being absolutely unsustainable in law is bound to be axed and we so do."
.
25. Learned Advocate General has further placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of J&K v. R.K. Zalpuri, (2015) 15 SCC 602, wherein, it has been held as under:-
"20. Having stated thus, it is useful to refer to a passage from City and Industrial Development Corpn. v. Dosu Aardeshir Bhiwandiwala [City and Industrial Development Corpn. v. Dosu Aardeshir Bhiwandiwala, (2009) 1 SCC 168], wherein this Court while dwelling upon jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, has expressed thus: (SCC p.
175, para 30).
"30. The Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 is duty-bound to consider whether:
(a) adjudication of writ petition involves any complex and disputed questions of facts and whether they can be satisfactorily resolved;
(b) the petition reveals all material facts;
(c) the petitioner has any alternative or effective remedy for the resolution of the dispute;
(d) person invoking the jurisdiction is guilty of unexplained delay and laches;
(e) ex facie barred by any laws of limitation;
(f) grant of relief is against public policy or barred by any valid law, and host of other factors."
21. In this regard reference to a passage from Karnataka Power Corpn. Ltd. v. K Thangappan [Karnataka Power Corpn. Ltd v. K. Thangappan, (2006) 4 SCC 322: 2006 SCC (L&S) 791] would be apposite: (SCC p. 325, para 6).
::: Downloaded on - 13/01/2023 20:31:50 :::CIS 124"6. Delay or laches is one of the factors which is to be borne in mind by the High Court when they exercise their discretionary powers under Article .
226 of the Constitution. In an appropriate case the High Court may refuse to invoke its extraordinary powers if there is such negligence or omission on the part of the applicant to assert his right as taken in conjunction with the lapse of time and other circumstances, causes prejudice to the opposite party."
After so stating the Court after referring to the authority in State of M.P. v. Nandlal Jaiswal [State of M.P. v. Nandlal Jaiswal, (1986) 4 SCC 566] restated the principle articulated in earlier pronouncements, which is to the following effect:
(SCC p. 326, para 9).
"9. ... the High Court in exercise of its discretion does not ordinarily assist the tardy and the indolent or the acquiescent and the lethargic. If there is inordinate delay on the part of the petitioner and such delay is not satisfactorily explained, the High Court may decline to intervene and grant relief in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. It was stated that this rule is premised on a number of factors. The High Court does not ordinarily permit a belated resort to the extraordinary remedy because it is likely to cause confusion and public inconvenience and bring, in its train new injustices, and if writ jurisdiction is exercised after unreasonable delay, may have the effect of inflicting not only hardship and inconvenience but also injustice on third parties. It was pointed out that when writ jurisdiction is invoked unexplained ::: Downloaded on - 13/01/2023 20:31:50 :::CIS 125 delay coupled with the creation of third-party rights in the meantime an important factor which also weighs with the High Court in deciding whether or .
not to exercise such jurisdiction."
22. In State of Maharashtra v. Digambar [State of Maharashtra v. Digambar (1995) 4 SCC 683] a three-Judge Bench laid down that: (SCC p. 692, para 19).
"19. Power of the High Court to be exercised under Article 226 of the Constitution, if is discretionary, its exercise must be judicious and reasonable, admits of no controversy. It is for that reason, a person's entitlement for relief from a High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, be it against the State or anybody else, even if is founded on the allegation of infringement of his legal right, has to necessarily depend upon unblameworthy conduct of the person seeking relief, and the court refuses to grant the discretionary relief to such person in exercise of such power, when he approaches it with unclean hands or blameworthy conduct."
23. Recently in Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Boards v. T.T. Murali Babu [Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Boards v. T.T. Murali Babu, (2014) 4 SCC 108: (2014) 1 SCC (L&S) 38], it has been ruled thus: (SCC p 117, para 16).
"16. Thus, the doctrine of delay and laches should not be lightly brushed aside A writ court is required to weigh the explanation offered and the acceptability of the same. The court should bear in mind that it is exercising an extraordinary and equitable jurisdiction. As a constitutional court it ::: Downloaded on - 13/01/2023 20:31:50 :::CIS 126 has a duty to protect the rights of the citizens but simultaneously it is to keep itself alive to the primary principle that when an aggrieved person, .
without adequate reason, approaches the court at his own leisure or pleasure, the court would be under legal obligation to scrutinise whether the lis at a belated stage should be entertained or not. Be it noted, delay comes in the way of equity. In certain circumstances delay and laches may not be fatal but in most circumstances inordinate delay would only invite disaster for the litigant who knocks at the doors of the court. Delay reflects inactivity and inaction on the part of a litigant--a litigant who has forgotten the basic norms, namely, 'procrastination is the greatest thief of time' and second, law does not permit one to sleep and rise like a phoenix. Delay does bring in hazard and causes injury to the lis."
26. Learned Advocate General has further placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of U.P. v. Arvind Kumar Srivastava, (2015) 1 SCC 347, wherein, it has been held as under:-
"22.1. The normal rule is that when a particular set of employees is given relief by the court, all other identically situated persons need to be treated alike by extending that benefit. Not doing so would amount to discrimination and would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. This principle needs to be applied in service matters more emphatically as the service jurisprudence evolved by this Court from time to time postulates that all similarly situated persons should be treated similarly. Therefore, the normal rule would be that merely because other similarly situated ::: Downloaded on - 13/01/2023 20:31:50 :::CIS 127 persons did not approach the Court earlier, they are not to be treated differently.
22.2. However, this principle is subject to well-recognised .
exceptions in the form of laches and delays as well as acquiescence. Those persons who did not challenge the wrongful action in their cases and acquiesced into the same and woke up after long delay only because of the reason that their counterparts who had approached the court earlier in time succeeded in their efforts, then such employees cannot claim that the benefit of the judgment rendered in the case of similarly situated persons be extended to them. They would be treated as fence-sitters and laches and delays, and/or the acquiescence, would be a valid ground to dismiss their claim."
27. Learned Advocate General has further placed reliance upon the decision passed by this Court in LPA No.408 of 2011, titled Anant Ram vs. State of H.P. & Others, dated 29.5.2013, wherein, it has been held as under:-
"6. The Principal grievance of the appellant is that the learned Single Judge completely overlooked the preliminary issue raised regarding maintainability of the Original Application albeit, at the instance of proforma-respondent No. 5. According to the appellant, the said issue goes to the root of the matter, as it had raised issue of the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to admit the Original Application, by virtue of Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985. In other words, the Original Application being barred by limitation, the same could not have proceeded further before the Tribunal and for the same reason; the writ petition being continuation thereof ought to have been dismissed.::: Downloaded on - 13/01/2023 20:31:50 :::CIS 128
7. This question, however, has not been adverted to by the learned Single Judge at all. Counsel for respondent No. 4 (writ petitioner) submits that this contention was not raised .
and should not be permitted at this belated stage, moreso, because the appellant did not participate in the proceedings and allowed the same to be proceeded exparte.
8. Having considered the rival submissions, we are of the considered opinion that the question regarding limitation is a vital question of jurisdictional fact and if answered against the writ petitioner, it would go to the root of the matter.
Inasmuch as, the Tribunal could not have assumed jurisdiction in respect of the cause of action, which had become time barred and for the same reason, the writ petition being continuation of that proceeding cannot proceed further. The fact that the appellant did not participate in the proceedings and the matter proceeded exparte, cannot be the basis to bestow jurisdiction on the Tribunal, which it did not possess by virtue of Section 21 of the Act. That is a question of authority of the Tribunal to entertain the cause or lis filed before it after the period of limitation had expired. Notably, the said ground was expressly taken by the proforma-respondent No. 5 in his reply-affidavit filed to oppose the Original Application. Having expressly raised that contention, the Tribunal could not have ignored the same and for the same reason, the High Court though was dealing with the transferred proceedings should have dealt with the same pointedly in the judgment under appeal. That obligation flows from the mandate of Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunal Act on the analogy underlying the mandate of Section 3 of the Limitation Act, 1963, which can be safely deduced. That would require the Court to ::: Downloaded on - 13/01/2023 20:31:50 :::CIS 129 consider the question of limitation even though, the same has not been set up as defence.
9. Suffice it to observe that the judgment under appeal .
cannot be countenanced for this singular reason and, therefore, the same is set aside. Instead, we restore the writ petition to the file to its original number for being proceeded afresh before the learned Single Judge on all aspects and contentions as may be available to the parties, to be decided in its own merits and in accordance with law."
28. Mr. A.K. Gupta, learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, has opposed the submissions made by learned Advocate General and has submitted that so far as Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, is concerned, the same would apply when some order has been passed. Respondents were seeking work charge status in view of the decision passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Mool Raj Upadhyaya vs. State of H.P. and others, 1994 Supp (2) SCC 316.
Although, the Department was taking up the plea that the Forest Department did not have work charge establishment, but from the documents placed on record by the respondents, it was evident that many employees of the Department had been conferred work charge status after completion of 8 years of service in pursuance to the writ petitions filed by them. Hence, the cases filed by the employees could also be not thrown out on the ground of delay and laches.
29. Learned counsel for the respondents has placed reliance upon the decision of this Court in passed in CWP No.2735 of 2010 titled Rakesh ::: Downloaded on - 13/01/2023 20:31:50 :::CIS 130 Kumar vs. State of H.P. & Ors., dated 28.7.2010, alongwith connected matters, wherein, it has been held as under:-
.
"6. The simple question is whether the delay defeats justice? In analyzing the above issue, it has to be borne in mind that the petitioners are only class-IV workers (Beldars).
The schemes announced by the Government clearly provided that the department concerned should consider the workmen concerned for bringing them on the work-charged category. So, there is an obligation cast on the department to consider the cases of the daily waged workmen for conferment of the work-charged status, being on a work- charged establishment, on completion of the required number of years in terms of the policy. At the best, the petitioners can only be denied the interest on the eligible benefits and not the benefits as such, which accrued on them as per the policy and under which policy, the department was bound to confer the status, subject to the workmen satisfying the required conditions.
7. In the above circumstances, these Writ Petitions are disposed of directing the respondents to consider the case(s) of the petitioners herein for conferment of work-
charged status, subject to their eligibility in terms of the policy dated 3.4.2000 and as explained in 6.5.2000 policy, as extracted above. Needful in this regard shall be done within a period of three months from the date of production of the copy of this judgment by the respective petitioners. Needless to say that the question of conferment of work- charged status does not arise in case the establishment ceases to be a work charged establishment and hence, the conferment of the status will not arise after the abolition of the work-charged status of the establishment."::: Downloaded on - 13/01/2023 20:31:50 :::CIS 131
30. Admittedly, Special Leave to Appeal filed against the said decision was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court alongwith other connected .
appeals vide order dated 15.1.2015 and the said order reads as under:-
"Delay condoned.
On hearing learned counsel for the partiers and after going through the materials on record, we see no infirmity in the order passed by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh and there is no reason to interfere in these special leave petitions.
Accordingly, the special leave petitions stand dismissed."
31. Thus, so far as the issues of limitation and delay & laches, are concerned, the same have already been dealt with by this Court in Rakesh Kumar's case supra. Admittedly, the said decision has attained finality and has been duly implemented by the State and the petitioners in the said case have been granted work charge status after completion of 8 years of service.
Hence, the argument raised by learned Advocate General to the effect that the cases of the employees were liable to be rejected being time barred or on account of delay and laches for imparting them work charge status after completion of 8 years of service, is liable to be rejected. Admittedly, all the employees are seeking work charge status after rendering 8 years service in pursuance to various Schemes framed by the State from time to time. In case, a person approaches the Court at a belated stage, the employee can be denied monetary benefits. In fact, the judgments passed by this Court as well as Hon'ble Supreme Court from time to time are more or less judgments in rem and the relief(s) sought by the daily wagers for conferment of work ::: Downloaded on - 13/01/2023 20:31:50 :::CIS 132 charge status after completion of 8 years of service were liable to be given to all the daily wage employees who were similarly situated. In the facts and .
circumstances of the present cases, the judgments relied upon by the learned Advocate General do not advance the case of the State.
32. The next submission made by learned Advocate General is that the judgment passed in Ashwani Kumar's case did not lay any law and, as such, was not applicable. In support of his arguments, he has placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India v.
Dhanwanti Devi, (1996) 6 SCC 44, wherein, it has been held as under:-
"... ... ... The concrete decision alone is binding between the parties to it, but it is the abstract ratio decidendi, ascertained on a consideration of the judgment in relation to the subject- matter of the decision, which alone has the force of law and which, when it is clear what it was, is binding. It is only the principle laid down in the judgment that is binding law under Article 141 of the Constitution. A deliberate judicial decision arrived at after hearing an argument on a question which arises in the case or is put in issue may constitute a precedent, no matter for what reason, and the precedent by long recognition may mature into rule of stare decisis. It is the rule deductible from the application of law to the facts and circumstances of the case which constitutes its ratio decidendi."
33. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, has submitted that the decision given in Ashwani Kumar's case supra passed by this Court has been duly implemented by the Department/State and the Special Leave Petition filed against the said decision was dismissed. Hence, ::: Downloaded on - 13/01/2023 20:31:50 :::CIS 133 it cannot be said that the decision given in Ashwani Kumar's case supra was not liable to be followed.
.
34. In State of HP and Ors. vs. Sh. Ashwani Kumar, passed in CWP No.3111 of 2016, on 10.5.2018, this Court dismissed the writ petition filed by the State, wherein order passed by the Himachal Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No.412 of 2016, on 23.6.2014, was under
challenge. The operative part of the order reads as under:-
"6. Having carefully perused material available on record, especially judgment rendered by this Court in Ravi Kumar v. State of H.P. and Ors, as referred herein above, which has been further upheld by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Special Leave to appeal (C) No. 33570/2010 titled State of HP and Ors. v. Pritam Singh and connected matters, this Court has no hesitation to conclude that there is no error in the finding recorded by the learned Tribunal that work charge establishment is not a pre-requisite for conferment of work charge status. The Division Bench of this Court while rendering its decision in CWP No. 2735 of 2010, titled Rakesh Kumar decided on 28.7.2010, has held that regularization has no concern with the conferment of work charge status after lapse of time, rather Court in aforesaid judgment has categorically observed that while deciding the issue, it is to be borne in mind that the petitioners are only class-IV worker (Beldars) and the schemes announced by the Government, clearly provides that the department concerned should consider the workmen concerned for bringing them on the work charged category and as such, there is an obligation cast upon the department to consider the case of daily waged workman for conferment of daily work charge status, being on a work charged establishment ::: Downloaded on - 13/01/2023 20:31:50 :::CIS 134 on completion of required number of years in terms of the policy. In the aforesaid judgment, it has been specifically held that benefits which accrued on workers as per policy .
are required to be conferred by the department.
7. Subsequent to aforesaid decision, this Court while disposing of CWP No. 2398 of 2016 titled HPSEB and Anr.
V. Nanak Chand and Ors, (alongwith connected matters), upheld the decision rendered by the learned Tribunal, whereby the respondent-electricity board was directed to consider the case of the applicant for conferment of work charge status on completion of ten years of service with all benefits incidental thereto. It may be noticed that decision rendered by the learned Tribunal in OA No. 3207 of 2015 in Narotam Singh v. HPSEB Ltd. and Ors, dated 14.12.2015, which subsequently came to be assailed in CWP No. 3301/2016, was squarely based upon decision rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Bhagwati Prasad v. Delhi State Mineral Development Corporation (1990) 1 SCC 361, as well as judgment rendered by this Court in CWP No. 9970 of 2012 titled Laxmi Devi v. State of H.P. and ors., decided on 26.11.2012.
8. Mr. A.K. Gupta, learned counsel representing the respondent has also brought factum to our notice with regard to the implementation of similar directions as issued in the present case by the various departments pursuant to the directions issued by the learned Tribunal as well as this Court in the case of other similarly situate persons. Mr. Gupta also invited attention of this Court to the judgments having been passed by this Court in CWP No.2735 of 2010, dated 28.7.2010, titled as Rakesh Kumar v. State of H.P. and others; 13.5.2013, passed in CWP No.1906 of 2013-A, titled as Hira Singh v. HPSEB Ltd. & anr.; 14.8.2014, passed ::: Downloaded on - 13/01/2023 20:31:50 :::CIS 135 in CWP No.2551 of 2014, titled as H.P. State Electricity Board and another v. Bhag Singh and others; 10.9.2014, passed in CWP No.179 of 2014, titled as Beg Dass and .
others v. HPSEB Ltd. and anr.; and 20.11.2014, passed in LPA No.621 of 2011, titled as H.P. State Electricity Board Limited and others v. Jagmohan Singh, perusal whereof clearly suggests that benefit as prayed for in the instant petition stands duly accorded to other similarly situate persons.
9. Consequently, in view of the aforesaid discussion as well as law relied upon, we see no reason to interfere with the well reasoned judgment passed by the learned Tribunal and as such, present petition fails and dismissed accordingly."
35. Against the said order, the State went in appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and in Civil Appeal No.5753/2019, arising out of SLP(C) No.10930/2019 vide order dated 22.7.2019, it was held as under:-
"1. Leave granted.
2. We have issued notice in this matter limited to the question of grant of back-wages. The respondent was engaged as a daily wager (Class IV) on 01.08.1994. Thereafter, he was given the post of Work Inspector in Class III that too on the daily wages basis, in view of the decision of the Government on completion of eight years of service. On 09.06.2006, regularization policy was framed and the appellant was regularized on 21.12.2006 on the temporary post of Work Inspector. Thereafter, he filed a writ petition in the High Court on 14.11.2013 seeking work charge status with effect from 01.01.2003 and other incidental benefits. The High Court, at the first instance, considered and rejected ::: Downloaded on - 13/01/2023 20:31:50 :::CIS 136 the representation of the respondent vide order dated 26.03.2014. The respondent filed another O.A. No.412 of 2016 before the Central Administrative Tribunal. The .
Tribunal has quashed the order and has ordered that on completion of eight years as daily wager work charge status can be conferred.
3. We are not disturbing the finding of the Tribunal, which was affirmed by the High Court, with respect to the conferral of the status of the work charge from 01.01.2003. However, as regularization has been made only in the year 2006, obviously, notional benefit could have to be granted as the petition was initially filed in the year 2013.
4. Thus, we make the modification that the respondent would be entitled only for notional benefits of the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal. Accordingly, with the aforesaid modification in the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal and the High Court, the appeal is disposed of."
36. In Ashwani Kumar's case supra, it was held specifically that work charge establishment was not a prerequisite for conferment of work charge status. So far as the decision given in Ashwani Kumar's case supra is concerned, the decision given by this Court was upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, as the Special Leave Petition filed by the State was dismissed. Admittedly the decision passed in Ashwani Kumar's case supra has attained finality and has been implemented by the State. Hence, the argument raised by learned Advocate General to the effect that the decision given in Ashwani Kumar's case supra was not applicable as it did not lay down any law, is without any force and is liable to be rejected.
::: Downloaded on - 13/01/2023 20:31:50 :::CIS 13737. Learned Advocate General has next submitted that the respondents cannot claim negative parity. In case, a relief has been wrongly given to .
similarly situated persons, the same relief cannot be given to the other employees.
38. In support of his argument, learned Advocate General has placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Bihar v.
Kameshwar Prasad Singh (2000) 9 SCC 94, wherein, it has been held as under:-
"30. The concept of equality as envisaged under Article 14 of the Constitution is a positive concept which cannot be enforced in a negative manner. When any authority is shown to have committed any illegality or irregularity in favour of any individual group of individuals, others cannot claim the same illegality or irregularity on the ground of denial thereof to them. Similarly wrong judgment passed in favour of individual does not entitle others to claim similar benefits. In this regard this Court in Gursharan Singh vs. New Delhi Municipal Committee [(1996) 2 SCC 459] held that citizens have assumed wrong notions regarding the scope of Article 14 of the Constitution which guarantees equality before law to all citizens. Benefits extended to some persons in an irregular or illegal manner cannot be claimed by a citizen on the plea of equality as is enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution by way of writ petition filed in the High Court. The Court observed (SCC p. 465, para 9).
"Neither Article 14 of the Constitution conceives within the equality clause this concept nor Article 226 empowers the High Court to enforce such claim of equality before law. If such claims are enforced, it shall amount to directing to continue and perpetuate ::: Downloaded on - 13/01/2023 20:31:50 :::CIS 138 an illegal procedure or an illegal order for extending similar benefits to others. Before a claim based on equality clause is upheld, it must be established by .
the petitioner that his claim being just and legal, has been denied to him, while it has been extended to others and in this process there has been a discrimination."
Again in Secy. Jaipur Development Authority v. Doulat Mal Jain [(1997) 1 SCC 35)] this Court considered the scope of Article 14 of the Constitution and reiterated its earlier position regarding the concept of equality holding (SCC pp. 51-52, para 28).
"Suffice it to hold that the illegal allotment founded upon ultra vires and illegal policy of allotment made to some other persons wrongly, would not form a legal premise to ensure it to the respondent or to repeat or perpetuate such illegal order, nor could it be legalised. In other words, judicial process cannot be abused to perpetuate the illegalities. Thus considered, we hold that the High Court was clearly in error in directing the appellants to allot the land to the respondents."
31. In State of Haryana v Ram Kumar Mann [(1997) 3 SCC 321 : 1997 SCC (L&S) 801] this Court observed: (SCC p.
322, para 3).
"The doctrine of discrimination is founded upon existence of an enforceable right. He was discriminated and denied equality as some similarly situated persons had been given the same relief. Article 14 would apply only when invidious discrimination is meted out to equals and similarly circumstanced without any rational basis or ::: Downloaded on - 13/01/2023 20:31:50 :::CIS 139 relationship in that behalf. The respondent has no right, whatsoever and cannot be given the relief wrongly given to them, ie, benefit of withdrawal of .
resignation. The High Court was wholly wrong in reaching the conclusion that there was invidious discrimination. If we cannot allow a wrong to perpetrate, an employee, after committing misappropriation of money, is dismissed from service and subsequently that order is withdrawn and he is reinstated into the service. Can a similarly circumstanced person claim equality under Section 14 for reinstatement? The answer is obviously 'No'. In a converse case, in the first instance, one may be wrong but the wrong order cannot be the foundation for claiming equality for enforcement of the same order. As stated earlier, his right must be founded upon enforceable right to entitle him to the equality treatment for enforcement thereof. A wrong decision by the Government does not give a right to enforce the wrong order and claim parity or equality. Two wrongs can never make a right."
32. In view of our finding that the judgment of the High Court in the case of Brij Bihari Prasad Singh being contrary to law was not sustainable and liable to be dismissed, the impugned judgment in the case of Kameshwar Prasad Singh case cannot be upheld. The aforesaid respondent is, therefore, not entitled to any relief as prayed for by him on the analogy of the judgments passed and directions given in Brij Bihari Prasad Singh case."
::: Downloaded on - 13/01/2023 20:31:50 :::CIS 14039. Learned Advocate General has also placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Commr. of Municipal Admn. v. M.C. .
Sheela Evanjalin, (2020) 19 SCC 317, wherein, it has been held as under:-
"17. At this stage, it may be mentioned that the learned counsel for the respondent referred to appointment to the post of Town Planning Inspector from the pet of Revenue Assistant in the Nagercoil Municipality. We find that such appointment be illegal and not warranted by the recruitment rules. It is well settled that there can be any parity in the illegality. Once the appointment to the post of Town Planning Inspector is not contemplated from amongst the Revenue Inspectors, the respondent cannot claim any party on the basis of illegality committed by Nagercoil Municipality.
Reference can be made to Chandigarh Admn. v. Jagjit Singh [(Chandigarh Admn. V. Jagjit Singh, (1995) 1 SCC 745] and Kulwinder Pal Singh v. State of Punjab [Kulwinder Pal Singh v. State of Punjab, (2016) 6 SCC 532: (2016) 2 SCC (L&S) 102] held as under: (Kulwinder Pal Singh case] Kulwinder Pal Singh v. State of Punjab, (2016) 6 SCC 532: (2016) 2 SCC (L&S) 102] SCC pp 539-40, para 16).
"16. The learned counsel for the appellants contended that when the other candidates were appointed in the post against dereserved category, the same benefit should also be extended to the appellants. Article 14 of the Constitution of India is not to perpetuate illegality and it does not envisage negative equalities. In State of U.P. v. Rajkumar Sharma [State of U.P. v. Rajkumar Sharma, (2006) 3 SCC 330: 2006 SCC (L&S) 565] it was held as under (SCC p. 337, para 15."::: Downloaded on - 13/01/2023 20:31:50 :::CIS 141
'15. Even if in some cases appointments have been made by mistake or wrongly, that does not confer any right on another person. Article 14 of .
the Constitution does not envisage negative equality, and if the State committed the mistake it cannot be forced to perpetuate the same mistake.
(See Sneh Prabha v. State of U.P. [Sneh Prabha v. State of U.P. (1996) 7 SCC 426] Jaipur Development Authority v. Daulat Mal Jain [Jaipur Development Authority v. Daulat Mal Jain, (1997) 1 SCC 35] State of Haryana v. Ram Kumar Mann [State of Haryana v. Ram Kumar Mann, (1997) 3 SCC 321: 1997 SCC (L&S) 801] : Faridabad CT Scan Centre v. D.G. Health Services [Faridabad CT Scan Centre v. D.G. Health Services, (1997) 7 SCC 752]: Jalandhar Improvement Trust v. Sampuran Singh [Jalandhar Improvement Trust v.
Sampuran Singh, (1999) 3 SCC 494]; State of Punjab v. Rajeev Sarwal [State of Punjab v. Rajeev Sarwal, (1999) 9 SCC 240; 1999 SCC (L&S) 1171]; Yogesh Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi) [Yogesh Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2003) 3 SCC 548: 2003 SCC (L&S) 346]; Union of India v. International Trading Co. [Union of India v. International Trading Co. (2003) 5 SCC 437] and Kastha Niwarak Grahnirman Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit v. Indore Development Authority [Kastha Niwarak Grahnirman Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit v. Indore Development Authority, (2006) 2 SCC 604].)' ::: Downloaded on - 13/01/2023 20:31:50 :::CIS 142 Merely because some persons have been granted benefit illegally or by mistake, it does not confer right upon the appellants to claim equality."
.
40. Learned Advocate General has also placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Odisha v. Pravat Kumar Dash, (2019) 8 SCC 294, wherein, it has been held as under:-
"18. The services of six persons who were appointed were ordered to be terminated on 10-12-1999 but even if their termination was set aside on 24-4-2001, it will not confer any right on the basis of equity in favour of the other candidates. There cannot be any parity in the illegality. Reference will be made to State (UT of Chandigarh) v. Jagjit Singh [State (UT of Chandigarh) v. Jagjit Singh, (1995) 1 SCC 745] and Kulwinder Pal Singh v. State of Punjab [Kulwinder Pal Singh v. State of Punjab, (2016) 6 SCC 532: (2016) 2 SCC (L&S) 102]."
41. Learned Advocate General has also placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of W.B. v. Debasish Mukherjee, (2011) 14 SCC 187, wherein, it has been held as under:-
"26. It is now well settled that guarantee of equality before law is a positive concept and cannot be enforced in a negative manner. If an illegality or an irregularity has been committed in favour of any individual or group of individuals, others cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the courts and tribunals to require the State to commit the same irregularity or illegality in their favour on the reasoning that they have been denied the benefits which have been illegally or arbitrarily extended to others. (See Gurusharan Singh v. New Delhi Municipal Committee [(1996) 2 SCC 459], Union ::: Downloaded on - 13/01/2023 20:31:50 :::CIS 143 of India v. Kirloskar v. Pneumatic Co. Ltd. [(1996) 4 SCC 453] 'Union of India v. International Trading Co. [(2003) 5 SCC 437] and State of Bihar v. Kameshwar Prasad Singh .
[(2000) 9 SCC 94: 2000 SCC (L&S) 845].
27. This question was exhaustively considered in Chandigarh Admn. v. Jagitt Singh [(1995) SCC 745: AIR 1995 SC 705] wherein this Court explained the legal position thus: (SCC p. 750, para 8) "8. ... the basis on the principle, if it can be called one, on which the writ petition has been allowed by the High Court is unsustainable in law and indefensible in principle.... Generally speaking, the mere fact that the respondent authority has passed a particular order in the case of another person similarly situated can never be the ground for issuing a writ in favour of the petitioner on the plea of discrimination. The order in favour of the other person might be legal and valid or it might not be. That has to be investigated first before it can be directed to be followed in the case of the petitioner. If the order in favour of the other person is found to be contrary to law or not warranted in the facts and circumstances of his case, it is obvious that such illegal or unwarranted order cannot be made the basis of issuing a writ compelling the respondent authority to repeat the illegality or to pass another unwarranted order. The extraordinary and discretionary power of the High Court cannot be exercised for such a purpose. ..... By refusing to direct the respondent authority to repeat the illegality, the court is not condoning the earlier illegal act/order nor can such illegal order constitute the basis for a legitimate complaint of discrimination. Giving effect to such pleas would be prejudicial to the interests of law and will do incalculable ::: Downloaded on - 13/01/2023 20:31:50 :::CIS 144 mischief to public interest. It will be a negation of law and the rule of law."
.
42. Learned Advocate General has further placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M.D. University v. Jahan Singh, (2007) 5 SCC 77, wherein, it has been held as under:-
"28. Even assuming the respondent and the said Shri Taneja were similarly situated, we may observe that Article 14 of the Constitution of India carries with it a positive concept. Article 14 of the Constitution cannot be invoked, for perpetuating illegality. (See Kuldeep Singh v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi [(2006) 5 SCC 702].)"
43. Learned Advocate General has also placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ghulam Rasool Lone v. State of J&K, (2009) 15 SCC 321, wherein, it has been held as under:-
"11. There cannot be any doubt whatsoever that keeping in view the equal protection clause contained in Article 14 of the Constitution of India as also Article 16 thereof, all the employees should be treated equally. Equality clause, however, must be enforced in legality and not illegality.
12. There cannot furthermore be any doubt that Article 14 is a positive concept. The Constitution does not envisage enforcement of the equality clause where a person has got an undue benefit by reason of an illegal act. In Panchi Devi v. State of Rajasthan [(2009) 2 SCC 589: (2009) 1 SCC (L&S) 408] this Court held: (SCC p. 591, para 9) "9.... Article 14 of the Constitution of India has a positive concept. Equality, it is trite, cannot be claimed in illegality. Even otherwise the writ petition as also the review petition have rightly not ::: Downloaded on - 13/01/2023 20:31:50 :::CIS 145 been entertained on the ground of delay and laches on the part of the appellant."
.
44. Learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the argument raised by learned Advocate General is without any basis, as in all the cases which have been filed before this Court, the judgment passed by this Court, have been duly implemented. In Rakesh Kumar's case and Ashwani Kumar's case supra, the decisions given by this Court, have been challenged by the State before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and after dismissal of the appeals, the judgments passed by this Court, were duly implemented. The respondents who were similarly situated were liable to be granted the same relief as the aforesaid judgments have attained finality.
45. We find force in the submissions made by learned counsel for the respondents. In fact, during the course of arguments, it has been pointed out that not only in Rakesh Kumar and Ashwani Kumar's cases supra, but in many other cases also, where this Court followed the decision given in Ashwani Kumar's case supra and had passed orders for their conversion as work charge status after completion of 8 years service, the same have been duly implemented by the State. It is only in the present cases, the State has taken up a different stand, and at this stage, has tried to agitate the decision given by this Court in Ashwani Kumar's case supra. Since the judgment passed in Ashwani Kumar's case supra has been implemented and has attained finality and, admittedly, in various other cases, where the judgments have been passed in pursuance to the order passed by this Court in Ashwani Kumar's case supra, the same have been implemented, the ::: Downloaded on - 13/01/2023 20:31:50 :::CIS 146 argument raised by learned Advocate General to the effect that the respondents could not claim negative parity is without any basis. In Ashwani .
Kumar's case, when the matter was taken up before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, leave was granted only with regard to the grant of back wages and the said part of the judgment passed by this Court was modified. The findings of the Tribunal as affirmed by this Court with respect to the conferment of work charge status from 1.1.2003 was upheld. However, as the writ petitions have been filed in the year, 2013, it was held that the employees would be entitled only to notional benefits.
46. Learned Advocate General has next argued with vehemence that dismissal of the Special Leave Petition in liminie by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India does not mean that any law had been laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
47. In support of his argument, learned Advocate General has placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala (2000) 6 SCC 359, wherein, it has been held as under:-
"14. The exercise of jurisdiction conferred on this Court by Article 136 of the Constitution consists of two steps: (i) granting special leave to appeal; and (ii) hearing the appeal.
This distinction is clearly demonstrated by the provisions of Order 16 of the Supreme Court Rules framed in exercise of the power conferred by Article 145 of the Constitution. Under Rule 4, the petition seeking special leave to appeal filed before the Supreme Court under Article 136 of the Constitution shall be in Form No.28. No separate application for interim relief need be filed, which can be incorporated in the petition itself. If notice is ordered on the special leave ::: Downloaded on - 13/01/2023 20:31:50 :::CIS 147 petition, the petitioner should take steps to serve the notice on the respondent. The petition shall be accompanied by a certified copy of the judgment or order appealed from and an .
affidavit in support of the statement of facts contained in the petition. Under Rule 10 the petition for grant of special leave shall be put up for hearing ex parte unless there be a caveat.
The court if it thinks fit, may direct issue of notice to the respondent and adjourn the hearing of the petition. Under Rule 13, the respondent to whom a notice in special leave petition is issued or who had filed a caveat, shall be entitled to oppose the grant of leave or interim orders without filing any written objections. He shall also be at liberty to file his objections only by setting out the grounds in opposition to the questions of law or grounds set out in the SLP. On hearing, the Court may refuse the leave and dismiss the petition for seeking special leave to appeal either ex parte or after issuing notice to the opposite party. Under Rule 11, on the grant of special leave, the petition for special leave shall, subject to the payment of additional court fee, if any, be treated as the petition of appeal and it shall be registered and numbered as such. The appeal shall then be set down for hearing in accordance with the procedure laid down thereafter. Thus, a petition seeking grant of special leave to appeal and the appeal itself, though both dealt with by Article 136 of the Constitution, are two clearly distinct stages. In our opinion, the legal position which emerges is as under:
(1) While hearing the petition for special leave to appeal, the Court is called upon to see whether the petitioner should be granted such leave or not. While hearing such petition, the Court is not exercising its appellate jurisdiction, it is merely exercising its discretionary jurisdiction to grant or not to grant leave to appeal. The petitioner is still outside the gate of ::: Downloaded on - 13/01/2023 20:31:50 :::CIS 148 entry though aspiring to enter the appellate arena of the Supreme Court. Whether he enters or not would depend on the fate of his petition for special leave;
.
(2) If the petition seeking grant of leave to appeal is dismissed, it is an expression of opinion by the Court that a case for invoking appellate jurisdiction of the Court was not made out;
(3) If leave to appeal is granted the appellate jurisdiction of the Court stands invoked, the gate for entry in the appellate arena is opened. The petitioner is in and the respondent may also be called upon to face him, though in an appropriate case, in spite of having granted leave to appeal, the Court may dismiss the appeal without noticing the respondent.
(4) In spite of a petition for special leave to appeal having been filed, the judgment, decree or order against which leave to appeal has been sought for, continues to be final, effective and binding as between the parties. Once leave to appeal has been granted, the finality of the judgment, decree or order appealed against is put in jeopardy though it continues to be binding and effective between the parties unless it is a nullity or unless the Court may pass a specific order staying or suspending the operation or execution of the judgment, decree or order under challenge."
48. Learned Advocate General has also placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. M.V. Mohanan Nair, (2020) 5 SCC 421, wherein, it has been held as under:-
"47. As noted above, the SLP preferred by Union of India against the order dated 19-10-2011 [Union of India vs. Raj Pal, 2011 SCC online P&H 14580] passed by the High Court was dismissed [Union of India vs. Raj Pal, 2013 SCC online ::: Downloaded on - 13/01/2023 20:31:50 :::CIS 149 SC 1441] on the ground that the delay in refilling has not been satisfactorily explained. The question which arises for consideration is when the SLP has been dismissed [ Union .
of India vs. Raj Pal, 2013 SCC Online SC 1441] on the ground of delay in filing or of refilling ( line in the case of Raj Pal), whether it can be taken as a binding precedent on the merit of the case as the "law declared by the Supreme Court within the meaning of Article 141 of the Constitution of India".
[Union of India vs. Raj Pal, 2013 SCC Online SC 1441] having been dismissed on the ground that no sufficient cause was shown for the delay in refilling, in our considered view, Raj Pal case (Union of India vs. Raj Pal, 2013 SCC Online SC 1441] ought not to have been quoted as a precedent of this Court by the High Courts.
48. Article 141 of the Constitution of India provides that the law declared by the Supreme Court shall be binding on all courts within the territory of India i.e. the pronouncement of the law on the point shall operate as a binding precedent on all courts within India. Law declared by the Supreme Court has to be essentially understood as a principle laid down by the court and it is this principle which has the effect of a precedent. A principle as understood from the word itself is a proposition which can only be delivered after examination of the matter on merits. It can never be in a summary manner, much less be rendered in a decision delivered on technical grounds, without entering into the merits at all. A decision, unaccompanied by reasons can never be said to be a law declared by the Supreme Court though it will bind the parties inter se in drawing the curtain on the litigation. In Union of India v All India Services Pensioners Assn. [Union of India v. All India Services Pensioners Assn. (1985) 2 SCC 580: 1988 SCC (L&S) 651], the Supreme Court held that (SCC p. 585, ::: Downloaded on - 13/01/2023 20:31:50 :::CIS 150 para 6) "when reasons were made by the Supreme Court for dismissing the SLP, the decision becomes one which attracts Article 141 of the Constitution which provides that .
the law declared by the Supreme Court shall be binding on all the courts within the territory of India"
49. Observing that when a special leave petition is dismissed by a non-speaking order, by such dismissal, the Supreme Court does not lay down any law as envisaged under Article 141 of the Constitution of India in Supreme Court Employees' Welfare Assn. vs. Union of India [Supreme Court Employees' Welfare Assn. vs. Union of India, (1989) 4 SCC 187: 1989 SCC (L&S) 569], this Court held as under: (SCC pp. 206-07. para 22).
"22. ... It is now a well-settled principle of law that when a special leave petition is summarily dismissed under Article 136 of the Constitution, by such dismissal this Court does not lay down any law, as envisaged by Article 141 of the Constitution, as contended by the learned Attorney General. In Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd. vs. State of Bihar [ Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd v. State of Bihar, (1986) 4 SCC 146:
1986 SCC (L&S) 740] it has been held by this Court that the dismissal of a special leave petition in limine by a non-speaking order does not justify any inference that by necessary implication, the contentions raised in the special leave petition on the merits of the case have been rejected by the Supreme Court. It has been further held that the effect of a non-speaking order of dismissal of a special leave petition without anything more indicating the grounds or reasons of its dismissal must, by necessary implication be taken to be that ::: Downloaded on - 13/01/2023 20:31:50 :::CIS 151 the Supreme Court had decided only that it was not a fit case where special leave petition should be granted. In Union of India v. All India Services .
Pensioners' Assn. [Union of India v. All India Services Pensioners' Assn., (1988) 2 SCC 580: 1988 SCC (L &S) 651] this Court has given reasons for dismissing the special leave petition. When such reasons are given, the decision becomes one which attracts Article 141 of the Constitution which provides that the law declared by the Supreme Court shall be binding on all the courts within the territory of India. It, therefore, follows that when no reason is given, but a special leave petition is dismissed simpliciter, it cannot be said that there has been a declaration of law by this Court under Article 141 of the Constitution."
49. Learned Advocate General has also placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Orissa v. Dhirendra Sundar Das (2019) 6 SCC 270, wherein, it has been held as under:-
"9.27. It is a well-settled principle of law emerging from a catena of decisions of this Court, including Supreme Court Employees' Welfare Assn. v. Union of India [Supreme Court Employees' Welfare Assn. v. Union of India, (1989) 4 SCC 187, paras 22 and 23 1989 SCC (L&S) 569] and State of Punjab vs. Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar [State of Punjab vs. Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar, (2011) 14 SCC 770, paras 112 and 113 (2012) 4 SCC (Civ) 1034: (2012) 4 SCC (Cri) 496:
(2014) 1 SCC (L&S) 208] that the dismissal of an SLP in limine simply implies that the case before this Court was not considered worthy of examination for a reason, which may be other than the merits of the case. Such in limine dismissal ::: Downloaded on - 13/01/2023 20:31:50 :::CIS 152 at the threshold without giving any detailed reason, does not constitute any declaration of law or a binding precedent under Article 141 of the Constitution."
.
50. Learned Advocate General has further placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Surinder Kumar (1992) 1 SCC 489, wherein, it has been held as under:-
"6. A decision is available as a precedent only if it decides a question of law. The respondents are, therefore, not entitled to rely upon an order of this Court which directs a temporary employee to be regularised in his service without assigning reasons. It has to be presumed that for special grounds which must have been available to the temporary employees in those cases, they were entitled to the relief granted. Merely because grounds are not mentioned in a judgment of this Court, it cannot be understood to have been passed without an adequate legal basis therefor. On the question of the requirement to assign reasons for an order, a distinction has to be kept in mind between a court whose judgment is not subject to further appeal and other courts. One of the main reasons for disclosing and discussing the grounds in support of a judgment is to enable a higher court to examine the same in case of a challenge. It is, of course, desirable to assign reasons for every order or judgment, but the requirement is not imperative in the case of this Court. It is, therefore, futile to suggest that if this Court has issued an order which apparently seems to be similar to the impugned order, the High Court can also do so. There is still another reason why the High Court cannot be equated with this Court. The Constitution has, by Article 142, empowered the Supreme Court to make such orders as may be necessary "for doing complete justice in any case or matter pending ::: Downloaded on - 13/01/2023 20:31:50 :::CIS 153 before it", which authority the High Court does not enjoy. The jurisdiction of the High Court, while dealing with a writ petition, is circumscribed by the limitations discussed and .
declared by the judicial decisions, and it cannot transgress the limits on the basis of whims or subjective sense of justice varying from Judge to Judge."
51. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, has submitted that in Ashwani Kumar's case supra, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, after granting leave, had issued notice only with regard to the question of back wages and had observed that the finding of the Tribunal affirmed by the High Court with respect to conferment of work charge status was not being disturbed. Thus, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has passed a conscious order so far as the relief of grant of work charge status was concerned and had declined to interfere with regard to the finding given by this Court. Hence, the argument raised by learned Advocate General to the effect that the dismissal of the Special Leave Petition in Ashwani Kumar's case supra by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, did not mean that any law had been laid down in Ashwani Kumar's case supra, was liable to be rejected.
52. In the present cases, all the daily wage employees are seeking conferment of work charge status on their completion of 8 years service in view of the various Policies framed by the State from time to time. In this regard, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in its decision passed in Mool Raj's case supra, had modified the Scheme formulated by the State and had observed that the daily wagers who had completed 10 years continuous service with minimum of 240 days in each calendar year, on 31.12.1993, shall be ::: Downloaded on - 13/01/2023 20:31:50 :::CIS 154 appointed as work charge employees. Admittedly, thereafter as per the amended Policy framed by the State from time to time, the requirement of .
completion of 10 years continuous service with minimum 240 days in each calendar year, was reduced to 8 years. This Court in Rakesh Kumar's case supra was dealing with the employees of Irrigation and Public Health Department who had been regularized in service as per the various Schemes announced by the State from time to time. The grievance raised by the petitioners in the said cases was that they should have been granted work charge status before regularization.
53. The Division Bench of this Court made reference to the order passed by the Government in Paragraphs 2 and 3 of its order dated 28.7.2010, passed in CWP No.2735 of 2010 titled Rakesh Kumar vs. State of H.P. & Ors., and the same read as under:-
"2. The only reference to be made for analyzing the grievance of the petitioners is two orders of the Government. One order is dated 3.4.2000 and other is dated 6.5.2000.
Order dated 3.4.2000, reads as follows:
"In partial modification of this Department letter of even number dated 8th July, 1999 on the above subject, I am directed to say that the Government has now decided that the Daily Waged/Contingent Paid workers in all the Departments including Public Works and Irrigation and Public Health Departments (other than work-charged categories)/Boards/ Corporations/Universities, etc. who have completed 8 years of continuous service (with a minimum of 240 days in a calendar year) as on 31-03-2000 will be eligible for regularization. It has further been ::: Downloaded on - 13/01/2023 20:31:50 :::CIS 155 decided that completion of required years of service makes such daily wager/contingent paid worker eligible for consideration to be regularized and .
regularization in all cases will be from prospective effect i.e. from the date the order of regularization is issued after completion of codal formalities.
2. In view of the above decision and in order to avoid any litigation and also any hardship to daily wagers departments shall do the regularization based on seniority and they will ensure that senior persons are regularized first rather than regularizing junior persons first.
3. Other terms and conditions like fulfillment of essential qualification as prescribed in R&P Rules, etc. etc. as laid down in this department letter of 8th July, 1999, as referred to above, shall continue to be operative.
4. These instructions may kindly be brought to the notice of all concerned for strict compliance.
5. These instructions have been issued with the prior approval of the Finance Department obtained vide their Dy. No. 852 dated 23-03-2000."
3. Order dated 6.5.2000, to the extent relevant, reads as follows:
"2. During the process of regularization of daily wagers, various issues and problems relating to these workers concerning their regularization have been brought to the notice of the Government. The Government in order to avoid such confusion or problems has decided to streamline the existing procedure/instructions in order to bring uniformity of ::: Downloaded on - 13/01/2023 20:31:50 :::CIS 156 procedure in various Departments of the Government. It has, therefore, been decided that henceforth:
.
(i) Daily Waged/Contingent Paid Workers who have completed required years of continuous service (with a minimum of 240 days in a calendar year except where specified other wise for the tribal areas) which as per latest instructions issued vide this Department letter of even number dated 3-4-2000 is 8 years as on 31-03-2000 shall be eligible for regularization. However, in Departments/ Corporations/Boards, where the system of the work charge categories also exists, eligible daily wagers will be considered first for bringing them on the work charge category instead of regularization. Such eligible daily waged workers/contingent paid workers will be considered for regularization against vacant posts or by creation of fresh posts and in both these events prior approval of Finance Department will be required as per their letter No. Fin-1-C(7)-1/99 dated 24-12-1999. The terms and conditions for such regularization shall be governed as per Annexure -'A'."
54. It was also noticed by the Division Bench that new Scheme was introduced on 9.6.2006 and on completion of 8 years of service, the employees were liable to be granted work charge status. The Writ Petitions filed by Rakesh Kumar and others were allowed and the Special Leave Petition filed against the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court, was dismissed vide order dated 15.1.2015. Thereafter, in Ashwani Kumar's case supra, this Court upheld the decision passed by the Tribunal, whereby, ::: Downloaded on - 13/01/2023 20:31:50 :::CIS 157 the daily wage employees had been ordered to be conferred work charge status on completion of 8 years of service. The finding of the Tribunal that .
work charge establishment was not a prerequisite for conferment of work charge status was upheld by this Court in Ashwani Kumar's case and the decision given by this Court in Ashwani Kumar's case was upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Thereafter, many cases have been decided by this Court, basing reliance on the decision given by this Court in Ashwani Kumar's case and the judgments passed by this Court, have, admittedly, been implemented by the State.
55. Hence, the State, which is expected to act like a model employer and should have rather granted the same relief, as claimed by the respondents and other petitioners being similarly situated qua the daily wagers/petitioners who had approached this Court and decisions have already been passed in their favour, but has rather now argued that the decision given by this Court in Ashwani Kumar's case supra did not lay down any law and the observations made therein were per incuriam. This leads to the inference that the State/Department has rather adopted a pick and choose Policy. Once, the judgment in Ashwani Kumar's case supra has been implemented and has attained finality, then the respondents/petitioners who are similarly situated, are liable to be granted the same relief. So far as the observation made by this Court in Rakesh Kumar's case supra to the effect that the question of conferment of work charge status did not arise in case the establishment ceases to be a work charge establishment, is concerned, the said observation had been made without there being any issue raised in this ::: Downloaded on - 13/01/2023 20:31:50 :::CIS 158 regard. The decision given in Rakesh Kumar's case has been admittedly implemented and the petitioners have been granted work charge status on .
their completion of 8 years of service on daily wage basis. Thus, in that case there was no issue as to whether the establishment was a work charge one or not. Thus, in the present cases, the issue involved already stands settled vide judgment given by this Court in Ashwani Kumar's case supra which has been followed by this Court time and again and, admittedly, many writ petitions have been decided in terms thereof and the said decisions have been duly implemented. Hence, the State cannot be permitted to take a pick and choose Policy. In the case of Rakesh Kumar supra, this Court had categorically held that the question of delay in the present cases is not to be taken for consideration and can be considered for denial of interest on the eligible benefits and not the benefits as such. Hence, the State cannot be permitted to re-agitate the issue which has already been settled by this Court.
Rather, the State should itself grant the relief to the daily wagers by conferring work charge status on them after completion of 8 years of service in terms of their Policies and decisions of this Court.
56. So far as the cases involving Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Limited are concerned, learned counsel for the Board has placed reliance on the decision of this Court given in CWP No.211 of 2018, titled Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Limited & others vs. Jagat Singh, wherein, the case of an employee who had been conferred work charge status as a Beldar had claimed that he should be regularized as a Mate on completion of ten years of service. In the said case, it was held that ::: Downloaded on - 13/01/2023 20:31:50 :::CIS 159 a person who had been working as a Beldar on work charge basis and has been regularized as such, could not claim the relief that he was entitled for .
conferment of work charge status on the post of Mate as he had accepted his status as work charge Beldar/regular Beldar thereafter. This shows that in the Electricity Board, work charge status is being conferred on the daily wage employees. Hence, the employees working with the Electricity Board and who have completed eight years of service would also be covered by the decision given in Ashwani Kumar's case supra.
57. In view of the above, the writ petitions filed by the employees are allowed and the respondents are directed to grant work charge status to the employees from the date they had completed eight years of service on daily wage basis in terms of the decision given by this Court in Ashwani Kumar's case supra. However, benefits consequent to conferment of work charge status in terms of instant judgment shall be restricted to three years for the period prior to filing of petition.
58. The Letters Patent Appeal(s), which have been filed by the respondents/State/employer against the orders passed by learned Single Judge, including LPA No.165 of 2021, as well as writ petitions filed by the respondents/State/employer against the orders passed by the Tribunal, are dismissed with the clarification that the benefits consequent on conferment of work charge status in terms of the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge shall be restricted to three years for the period prior to filing of petition.
::: Downloaded on - 13/01/2023 20:31:50 :::CIS 16059. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
.
60. Following cases are de-linked and be listed as per Roster:-
CWP No.4789/2020, CWP No.4785/2020, CWPNo.4782/2020, CWP No.4396/2020, CWPOA No.25/2020, CWPOA No.136/ 2020, CWPOA No.195/2020, CWPOA No.503/2020, CWPOA No.514/ 2020, CWPOA No.4193/2020 CWPOA No.4357/2020, CWPOA No.4486/2020, CWPOA No.4778/2020, CWPOA No.4806/2020, CWPOA No.6231/2020, CWPOA No.7457/2020, CWPOA No.7594/2020, COPC-T No.1085/2020, Execution Petition No.354/2020, Execution Petition No.147/2020, CWP No.30/2021, CWP No.61/2021, CWP No.62/2021, CWP No.110/2021, CWP No.209/2021, CWP No.268/2021, CWP No.825/2021, CWP No.831/2021, CWP No.855/2021, CWP No.1594/2021, CWP No.1596/2021, CWP No.1601/2021, CWP No.4064/2020, CWP No.4060/2020, CWP No.3804/2020, CWP No.3649/2020, CWP No.3570/2020, CWP No.3536/2020, CWP No.3239/2020, CWP No.2960/2020, CWP No.2420/2020, CWP No.2371/2020, CWP No.2335/2020, CWP No.2318/2020, CWP No.2311/2020, CWP No.1762/2020,CWP No.1741/2020, CWP No.1346/2020, CWP No.21/2020, Execution Petition No.107/2019, Execution Petition No.26/2019, CWPOA No.7768/ 2019, CWPOA No.5512/2019, CWPOA No.5511/2019, CWPOA No.3290/2019, CWP No.4040/2019, CWP No.520/ 2022, CWP No.2077/2022, CWP No.2597/2022, CWP No.1714/2021, CWP No.1702/2021, CWP No.1786/2021, CWP No.1845/2021, CWP No.2100/2021, CWP No.2637/2021, CWP No.2878/2021, CWP No.3007/2021, CWP No.3008/2021, CWP No.3252/2021, CWP No.3294/2021, CWP No.3687/2021, CWP N.3750/2021, CWP No.3884/2021, CWP No.3994/2021, CWP No.4151/2021, CWP No.1348/2019, CWP No.1347/2019, CWP No.1580/2021, CWP No.1408/2021, CWP No.1376/2021, Execution Petition No.48/2019, CWP No.4853/2022, CWP No.4921/2022, CWP No.4932/2022, CWP No.4933/2022, CWP No.4934/2022, CWP No.4935/2022, CWP No.4937/2022, CWP No.4938/2022, CWP No.4939/2022, CWP No.4940/2022, CWP No.4950/2022, CWP No.4994/2022, CWP No.4995/2022, CWP No.5000/2022, CWP No.5417/2022, CWP No.5775/2022, CWP No.5804/2022, CWP No.6301/2022, CWP No.4185/2021, CWP No.4196/2021, CWP No.4200/2021, CWP No.4215/2021, CWP No.4252/2021, CWP No.4552/2021, CWP No.4543/2021, CWP No.4592/2021, CWP No.4843/2021, CWP No.4935/2021, CWP No.6507/2021, CWP No.6839/2021, CWP No.7370/2021, CWP No.7386/2021, CWP No.7738/2021, CWP No.8163/2021, CWP No.8164/2021, CWP No.8213/2021,Execution Petition No.37/2021, ::: Downloaded on - 13/01/2023 20:31:50 :::CIS 161 Execution Petition No.187/2021, Execution Petition No.210/2021, Execution Petition No.239/2021, Execution Petition No.240/2021, Execution Petition No.241/2021, Execution Petition No.243/2021, Execution Petition No.293/2021, Execution Petition No.28/2021, .
Execution Petition No.54/2021, Execution Petition No.210/2021, CMP(M) No.1905/2019, LPA No.9 & 60 of 2021, LPA Nos.81, 176, 185 and 186 of 2022
61. Mr. A.K. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that CWP No.2333/2020, CWP No.2405/2020, CWP No.1198/2021, CWP No.748/2019 and CWPOA No.1967/2020 have been rendered infructuous.
62. Accordingly, CWP No.2333/ 2020, CWP No.2405/2020, CWP No.1198/2021, CWP No.748/2019 and CWPOA No.1967/2020 are disposed of, as having been rendered infructuous.
Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
( A.A. Sayed ) Chief Justice ( Sabina) Judge January 12, 2023 (KS/PS) ::: Downloaded on - 13/01/2023 20:31:50 :::CIS