##PAGE1##

2026:HHC:8779

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA

CWP No. 10822 of 2025 Decided on : 23.03.2026 Pawna Devi …Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others

…Respondents Coram

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge Whether approved for reporting?

For the petitioner : Mr. Naresh Kumar Tomar, Advocate.

For the respondents : Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, Additional Advocate General, for respondents

No.1 to 3.

Mr. Madan Gopal, Advocate, for respondent No.4.

Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral

By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has, inter

alia, prayed for the following reliefs:-

“i. That the impugned order dated 02.08.2024, passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate Thunag, District Mandi, HP, whereby Learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate Thunag, has declined to entertained the appeal as not

1Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

::: Downloaded on - 26/03/2026 03:22:52 :::CIS

2

2026:HHC:8779 maintainable, may kindly be quashed and set aside.

ii. That Leaned Sub-Divisional Magistrate Thunag, District Mandi, HP, may kindly be directed to decided the

appeal of the petitioner on merits.

Iii. Tthat alternatively keeping in' view the facts and circumstances of present case impugned order dated 02.08.2024, passed by Learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Thunag, District Mandi, HP, in Appeal under Chapter 28.21 oft Land Record Manual, and order dated 06.02.2023, passed in case 2/TDR, by Learned Tehsildar, Tehsil Thunag, District Mandi, HP, may kindly

be stayed, may kindly be quashed and set aside.”

2. The petitioner primarily is aggrieved by order dated 02.08.2024 (Annexure P-2), passed by the Appellate Authority, i.e., Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Thunag, in terms whereof, the appeal preferred by her against the cancellation of her income certificate by Tehsildar, Thunag, has been held to be not admissible, in lieu of a writ petition pending before the High

Court, reference whereof is given in the said order.

3. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Thunag, this Court is of the considered view that

::: Downloaded on - 26/03/2026 03:22:52 :::CIS

3

2026:HHC:8779 said order is not sustainable in the eyes of law.

4. The factual position is that respondent Dimple Kumar, assailed the appointment of the petitioner as a Part- Time Multi-Task worker, inter alia, by way of an Appeal on the ground that the income certificate was procured by the petitioner by furnishing a false information. Besides this, Dimple Kumar also preferred a complaint before the Tehsildar, assailing the legality of the income certificate issued in favour of the petitioner on tuhe ground that the same was obtained by the

petitioner by oconcealing material facts.

5. CIn terms of order dated 06.02.2023, Tehsildar, Thunag, accepted the complaint of Dimple Kumar and set aside the income certificate of the present petitioner. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner preferred an appeal, which was dismissed by the Appellate Authority in terms of the impugned

order.

6. As far as appeal filed by Dimple Kumar against the petitioner qua her selection against the post of part time multi- task worker is concerned, the same was allowed by the first Authority and the order passed by the first Authority was upheld

::: Downloaded on - 26/03/2026 03:22:52 :::CIS

4

2026:HHC:8779 by the second Authority. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has assailed the same before this Court and the matter is pending adjudication by way of CWP No. 5384 of 2024, titled Pawna

Devi Vs. The State of H.P. & Ors.

7. In CWP No. 5384 of 2024, this Court has been pleased to stay the operation of the orders which were passed by the Appellate Authorities relating to the engagement of the

petitioner.

8. The Auppellate Authority herein erred in not appreciatingo that the dispute raised by way of an appeal before the saCid Authority, was totally different from the lis pending before the High Court and there