SHETU RAM(Not Applicable) vs STATE OF HP AND OTHERS(Not Applicable) — CWP/8946/2026

Case under Constitution of India Section 226. Disposed: Contested--Disposed Off on 15th June 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: HPHC010320282026

Filing Number

CWP/27849/2026

Filing Date

19-May-2026

Registration No

CWP/8946/2026

Registration Date

03-Jun-2026

Judge

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel

Coram

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel

Bench Type

Single

Judicial Branch

Civil Section

Decision Date

15-Jun-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Disposed Off

Last updated 16-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Constitution of India Section 226

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.SHETU RAM(Not Applicable)

    Adv. Archana Dutt,Ranjana Devi,Ranjana Devi, ,Ranjana Devi

Respondent(s)

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

    Adv. ,Praveen Chauhan,Komal Chaudhary,AG 1123

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 15-Jun-2026

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel

  3. 04-Jun-2026

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan GoelView PDF

    Case Summary: Shetu Ram v. State of H.P. & Ors. (CWP No.8946 of 2026) The court dismissed the petitioner's challenge to a departmental order, finding no grounds for intervention. The petitioner's services were converted to daily wage basis in 2009, regularized in 2013, and he retired in 2015, completing approximately 3 years 10 months of service. The court held that since the petitioner failed to complete 5 years of daily wage service, he was ineligible for the additional superannuation benefit at age 60 as per Supreme Court precedent. The matter was adjourned to 15.06.2026 for further instructions. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  4. 04-Jun-2026

    Notice Before Admission

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel

  5. 19-May-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. CWP/8946/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: Shetu Ram v. State of H.P. & Ors. (CWP No.8946 of 2026) The court dismissed the petitioner's challenge to a departmental order, finding no grounds for intervention. The petitioner's services were converted to daily wage basis in 2009, regularized in 2013, and he retired in 2015, completing approximately 3 years 10 months of service. The court held that since the petitioner failed to complete 5 years of daily wage service, he was ineligible for the additional superannuation benefit at age 60 as per Supreme Court precedent. The matter was adjourned to 15.06.2026 for further instructions. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case