STATE OF HP AND ANOTHER(Not Applicable) Deputy Advocate General vs Keshav Chand(Not Applicable) — CWP /4244/2026
Case under Constitution of India Section 226. Disposed: Contested--Disposed Off on 01st April 2026.
CNR: HPHC010167642026
e-Filing Number
30-03-2026
Filing Number
CWP /14459/2026
Filing Date
30-03-2026
Registration No
CWP /4244/2026
Registration Date
31-03-2026
Judge
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTSNA REWAL DUA
Coram
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTSNA REWAL DUA
Judicial Branch
Civil Section
Decision Date
01st April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Disposed Off
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
STATE OF HP AND ANOTHER(Not Applicable) Deputy Advocate General
Divisional FOREST Officer Bilaspur District Bilaspur HP(Not Applicable)
Adv. Seema Sharma
Divisional Forest Officer, Bilaspur,(Not Applicable)
Respondent(s)
Keshav Chand(Not Applicable)
Hearing History
Judge: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTSNA REWAL DUA
NOTICE BEFORE ADMISSION
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 01-04-2026 | NOTICE BEFORE ADMISSION |
Orders
Summary The High Court of Himachal Pradesh dismissed three consolidated writ petitions filed by the State of Himachal Pradesh challenging gratuity payment orders issued by the Labour Commissioner-cum-Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 in favor of respondents Pawan Kumar, Daulat Ram, and Keshav Chand. The court found the legal issues identical to precedent cases (Binu Ram and Bindumati) and applied the same reasoning to dismiss the petitions, upholding the respondents' right to gratuity payments. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary The High Court of Himachal Pradesh dismissed three consolidated writ petitions filed by the State of Himachal Pradesh challenging gratuity payment orders issued by the Labour Commissioner-cum-Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 in favor of respondents Pawan Kumar, Daulat Ram, and Keshav Chand. The court found the legal issues identical to precedent cases (Binu Ram and Bindumati) and applied the same reasoning to dismiss the petitions, upholding the respondents' right to gratuity payments. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts