Himachal Pradesh High Court Dismisses State’s Appeal In Contempt Matter Over Work-Charge Benefits | Cautions Against Repeated Appeals Causing Harassment To Poor Litigants | Government Must Heed Own Litigation Policy
Sanchayita Lahkar
The High Court of Himachal Pradesh Division Bench of Justice Vivek Singh Thakur and Justice Ranjan Sharma held that the appeal filed by the State was not maintainable under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act or Clause 15 of the Letters Patent. The Court dismissed the Letters Patent Appeal (LPA) filed by the State challenging an interim order in a contempt proceeding, concluding that the impugned order did not amount to a “judgment” nor involved imposition of punishment. The Court directed the parties to proceed before the Single Judge as previously ordered.
The petitioner was engaged as a daily-waged Beldar in the Department of Horticulture on 13 July 1971. From 1994 onwards, he completed 240 days of service in each calendar year. His services were regularized on 5 December 2006 under the applicable policy, with effect from a prospective date and against a vacant Class-IV post.
Subsequently, the petitioner claimed entitlement to work charge status from the date of completion of eight years of continuous service and sought benefits based on the judgment in Rakesh Kumar v. State of HP (CWP No. 2735 of 2010). In pursuit of this claim, he filed CWP No. 9579 of 2011. The Court disposed of the writ petition on 9 November 2011 with directions to consider the petitioner’s case in light of the aforementioned judgment, subject to the outcome of the State’s appeal pending before the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court dismissed the State’s appeal (SLP(C) No. 8830–8869 of 2011) on 15 January 2015. Following this, the petitioner’s request was rejected by the authorities on the grounds that no work charge establishment existed in the Horticulture Department.
Aggrieved, the petitioner filed OA No. 49 of 2016 before the then H.P. State Administrative Tribunal, which quashed the rejection order dated 27 August 2015 and directed reconsideration of the petitioner’s case. This decision was based on the Supreme Court’s judgments in Pritam Singh and Mohar Singh, where the Court held that the existence of a work charge establishment was not a prerequisite for granting such status.
Despite the order, the Department failed to reconsider the petitioner’s case, leading to Contempt Petition No. 221 of 2016, later re-registered as COPCT No. 130 of 2020 after the Tribunal was abolished. During these proceedings, the State filed CWP No. 2809 of 2020, challenging the Tribunal’s 2016 decision. However, the writ was dismissed as infructuous on 11 April 2023 based on the State’s submission that the order had already been implemented through an office order dated 10 June 2016.
Notably, the Tribunal’s decision had earlier been stayed by the High Court on 24 September 2020. The contempt petition was thus closed, with liberty to revive it if necessary.
After the writ’s dismissal, the petitioner moved for revival of the contempt petition, which was allowed on 19 May 2023. Although the Department conferred work charge status upon the petitioner from 1 January 2002 during the contempt proceedings, it did so conditionally, pending the outcome of an SLP in Surajmani’s case.
Subsequently, the Single Judge passed an order on 4 November 2023, holding that contempt was prima facie made out against respondents 7 and 8 for non-compliance with binding directions. The State then preferred LPA No. 229 of 2023 against the said order, which led to the present decision.
The Division Bench recorded that: “Learned Single Judge has not issued any direction on merit of dispute between the parties regarding work charge status, regularization or consequential benefits related thereto.”
The Bench further stated: “Learned Single Judge has only discussed the various orders passed by the Erstwhile H.P. State Administrative Tribunal in OA No. 49 of 2016, Division Bench of the High Court in CWP No. 2809 of 2013 and omission and commission on the part of parties which were incidental to be discussed for determining as to whether offence of contempt is made out in the present matter or not.”
Referring to the Supreme Court judgment in Midnapore People’s Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. Chunilal Nand [(2006) 5 SCC 399], the Division Bench noted: “In a contempt proceeding, it is not appropriate to adjudicate or decide any issue relating to the merits of the dispute between the parties.”
Further, the Court observed: “An appeal under Section 19 is maintainable only against an order or decision of the High Court passed in exercise of its jurisdiction to punish for contempt, that is, an order imposing punishment for contempt.”
Additionally, the Court referenced the Supreme Court’s 2024 ruling in Ajay Kumar Bhalla v. Prakash Kumar Dixit [AIR 2024 SC 4901], reiterating that only substantive findings affecting rights can be appealed, not procedural or interim orders such as the one in this case.
“The impugned order is a routine order which has been passed to facilitate the progress of contempt petition and though it may be causing some inconvenience to the respondents/State, it does not finally determine the rights and obligations of parties.”
Hence, the Court found that the impugned order did not constitute a “judgment” for purposes of appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent.
In its concluding remarks, the Division Bench took cognizance of a prior instance of avoidable litigation pursued by the State. Referring to CWP No. 1314 of 2016, titled Nigma Devi vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, the Court noted that despite having extended benefits to similarly situated individuals, the respondents-State had unnecessarily prolonged the litigation for years.
As a consequence, damages amounting to ₹20,00,000 had been imposed on the State, with explicit directions to recover the amount from the responsible officers and officials.
However, in the present matter, the Court exercised leniency. While acknowledging similar conduct by the State, it chose not to impose costs. Instead, the Court issued a caution to the State, advising it to refrain from repeating such actions in the future.
Lastly, the Registry was directed to list COPCT No. 130 of 2020 before the appropriate Bench on 16th July, 2025, with instructions that all parties shall attend the proceedings before the learned Single Judge on the said date.
The court stated as “Appeal stands disposed”.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Vishav Deep Sharma, Additional Advocate General and Mr. Hemant K. Verma, Deputy Advocate General
For the Respondents: Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sohail Khan, Advocate
Case Title: Director of Horticulture to the Government of HP v. Gejam Ram & Others
Neutral Citation: 2025: HHC:22391
Case Number: LPA No. 229 of 2023
Bench: Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Justice Ranjan Sharma
