DESH RAJ MISHRA(Not Applicable) vs STATE OF HP AND OTHERS(Not Applicable) — CWP/9236/2026

Case under Constitution of India Section 226. Disposed: Contested--Disposed Off on 16th June 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: HPHC010315172026

Filing Number

CWP/27433/2026

Filing Date

18-May-2026

Registration No

CWP/9236/2026

Registration Date

08-Jun-2026

Judge

Hon'ble Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua

Coram

Hon'ble Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua

Bench Type

Single

Judicial Branch

Civil Section

Decision Date

16-Jun-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Disposed Off

Last updated 18-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Constitution of India Section 226

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.DESH RAJ MISHRA(Not Applicable)

    Adv. Bonit Prakash

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF HP AND OTHERS(Not Applicable)

    Adv. AG 1123

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 16-Jun-2026

    Hon'ble Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal DuaView PDF

    Summary of CWP 9236/2026 - Desh Raj Mishra v. State of HP The High Court of Himachal Pradesh allowed the writ petition, setting aside the appellate order that had reduced the petitioner's gratuity interest from 10% to 9%. The court held that under Section 7(7) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, appeals must be filed within 60 days of the Controlling Authority's order, extendable by another 60 days only for "sufficient cause"—establishing a maximum 120-day limitation period. Since respondents filed their appeal over two years after the original order, it was barred by limitation and the appellate authority correctly dismissed it as unmaintainable. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 16-Jun-2026

    Notice Before Admission

    Hon'ble Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua

  4. 18-May-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. CWP/9236/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Summary of CWP 9236/2026 - Desh Raj Mishra v. State of HP The High Court of Himachal Pradesh allowed the writ petition, setting aside the appellate order that had reduced the petitioner's gratuity interest from 10% to 9%. The court held that under Section 7(7) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, appeals must be filed within 60 days of the Controlling Authority's order, extendable by another 60 days only for "sufficient cause"—establishing a maximum 120-day limitation period. Since respondents filed their appeal over two years after the original order, it was barred by limitation and the appellate authority correctly dismissed it as unmaintainable. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case