The High Court reaffirmed that when an appellant is granted the sought-after relief in accordance with prior authoritative precedent, further appeal is rendered infructuous. This decision follows and applies established precedent (Vikram Singh & Others v. HRTC & Others) and is binding on subordinate courts and public sector employment regularization claims in Himachal Pradesh.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | LPA/148/2025 of BIRI SINGH Vs HRTC AND ANR |
| CNR | HPHC010700402024 |
| Date of Registration | 04-04-2025 |
| Decision Date | 17-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | Disposed Off |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE GURMEET SINGH SANDHAWALIA |
| Concurring or Dissenting Judges | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JIYA LAL BHARDWAJ |
| Court | High Court of Himachal Pradesh |
| Bench | The Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S.Sandhawalia, Chief Justice; The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge |
| Precedent Value | Binding authority within Himachal Pradesh; follows established precedent |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms order passed in Civil Writ Petition No. 2343 of 2020 (Vikram Singh & Others v. HRTC & Others) |
| Type of Law | Service Law / Public Employment Regularization |
| Questions of Law | Whether an appeal survives when the substantive relief sought (regularization) has already been granted in accordance with precedent |
| Ratio Decidendi | The court held that once the appellant has been granted the relief of regularization after one year of contractual service, in accordance with an authoritative earlier decision, the pending appeal is rendered infructuous. The logic is that, where relief is complete and in conformity with binding judicial precedent, no legal controversy remains for adjudication. The matter is accordingly disposed of, including pending applications. |
| Judgments Relied Upon | Civil Writ Petition No. 2343 of 2020 titled Vikram Singh and others v. HRTC and others |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | Office order dated 04.06.2025 granting regularization; the order in CW 2343/2020 (Vikram Singh) was followed; once relief is granted based on precedent, further appeal is not maintainable. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | Appellant was seeking regularization after serving on a contractual basis. Respondents placed on record an office order granting such benefit in line with a binding precedent. Appellant’s counsel no longer pressed the appeal as relief was achieved. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts and authorities in Himachal Pradesh handling public employment regularization |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts on the principle of infructuousness upon grant of full relief based on binding precedent |
| Follows | Vikram Singh & Others v. HRTC & Others (CW 2343/2020, Himachal Pradesh High Court) |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Clarifies that if the respondent grants the complete relief sought (here, regularization after one year per precedent) during appeal, continuing the appeal serves no legal purpose and should be withdrawn or marked infructuous.
- Restates the binding effect of authoritative judicial precedents (such as Vikram Singh & Others) on service regularization issues within the jurisdiction.
- Office orders that grant statutory or judicial entitlements in line with precedent may be accepted as sufficient basis to dispose of pending litigation as infructuous.
- Lawyers should check if their clients have been granted similar relief after initial litigation, as appeals may not survive in such circumstances.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The court noted that the respondents had placed on record an office order dated 04.06.2025 granting the appellant regularization after one year of contractual service, pursuant to the prior decision in Vikram Singh & Others v. HRTC & Others.
- The appellant’s counsel did not press the appeal further, acknowledging the relief granted.
- The division bench held that, since the relief sought in the appeal stood granted, and in consonance with a binding precedent, the appeal was rendered infructuous.
- All related pending applications were also disposed of.
- The ratio is anchored in judicial economy and the principle that courts do not decide abstract questions when efficacious relief has already been granted in accordance with law.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (Appellant)
Sought regularization after serving in a contractual capacity.
Respondent
Placed on record an office order (04.06.2025) granting regularization to the appellant after one year of contractual service, in line with the decision in Vikram Singh & Others v. HRTC & Others.
Factual Background
The appellant, Biri Singh, was employed on a contractual basis and sought regularization of his service. During the pendency of the present appeal, the respondent HRTC produced an office order dated 04.06.2025, granting regularization to the appellant after completion of one year of contractual service. This action was in conformity with the precedent set by Vikram Singh & Others v. HRTC & Others. The appellant’s counsel agreed not to press the appeal, as the relief sought had been granted.
Statutory Analysis
The judgment does not set out or interpret statutory provisions directly but rests on the application of judicial precedent regarding regularization of contractual employees in public service pursuant to earlier binding judicial determinations.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or separate concurring opinion; the decision was unanimous.
Procedural Innovations
No new procedural innovations were introduced in this judgment.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The court reaffirmed existing law by following the precedent set in Vikram Singh & Others v. HRTC & Others.