( 2026:HHC:29442 )

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

FAO (OS)No. 05 of 2025

Reserved on 15.05.2026

Pronounced on: 18.07.2026

Uploaded on: 18.07.2026

State of HP and Another …..Appellants

Vs.

Bir Singh ...Respondent

Coram:

The Hon'ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice.

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting? Yes.

For the Appellants :Mr. Rakesh Dhaulta, Additional

Advocate General.

For the respondent:Mr. Rahul Mahajan, Advocate.

G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice .

The present Appeal has been preferred by the

appellant/State challenging the interim order dated

27.07.2023, passed by the learned Single Judge in CMP

No.10900/2022 (in Civil Writ Petition No. 8386 of 2021),

whereby the application filed by the applicant/respondent

herein under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947,

(hereinafter referred to as “the ID Act 1947”) has been allowed

2

and the appellant/State was directed to pay full wages last

drawn by the applicant/respondent herein, inclusive of

allowances, to the respondent, from the date of passing the

award, i.e., 21.11.2017.

2. The present case apparently pertains to a daily

wage casual labourer, who was performing various seasonal

forestry works right from the year 1987 with respondent No.2-

the Divisional Forest Officer, Parvati Forest Division at Shamshi

District Kullu, HP in Bhuntar Forest Range and presents a saga

of misery of a poor labourer by termination of his services,

time to time without complying with the provisions of the ID

Act, 1947.

3. The question arising in the present appeal is

whether, due to the employer's delay in filing the writ petition,

the workman’s right to seek wages under Section 17-B of the

ID Act, 1947, should be determined from the date of the Award

or from the date of filing of the application under Section 17-B

of the ID Act, 1947, which is accompanied by the necessary

affidavit.

4. To decide the matter in controversy, a brief

narration of facts to the extent relevant, may be noticed.

3

5. The respondent, namely, Bir Singh w.e.f. January,

1987 had worked intermittently as per availability of works

and funds up to April, 2010 with the appellants/State and

thereafter abandoned the work at his own will against which

he was deployed and stopped altogether to report for his duty

as per the case of the State. The respondent had not

completed 240 days in any calendar year except the years

1999 and 2000 right from the year 1987 till the year 2010, as

is evident from the Mandays chart (Annexure P-II).

6. The respondent herein served demand notice under

Section 2-A of the ID Act, 1947 dated 08.03.2013 (Annexure

P-III), upon Conservator of Forests, Kullu, District Kullu, H.P.

alleging therein that his services were retrenched by the

department during April, 2010 without following procedure

under Sections 23-F, 23-G & 25-H of ID Act, 1947 and

demanded re-engagement in service and to condone fictitious

breaks given to him.

7. Respondent No.2-the Deputy Conservator of Forest

filed reply (Annexure P-IV) to the said demand notice before

the Labour Officer-cum-Conciliation Officer Kullu, whereby he

has denied that the respondent worked continuously from

01/1987 to 04/2010. It was further averred that the

4

respondent worked with the petitioner department

intermittently as per his own convenience on seasonal works

which is evident form Annexure-P-I. It has been stated that

the respondent had never been retrenched during 04/2010. In

fact he had never turned up to the work on his own accord for

the reasons best known to him and himself had abandoned the

work.

8. The Labour Officer-cum-Conciliation Officer Kullu

tried to settle the dispute during conciliation proceedings, but

could not succeed and submitted the report under section 12

(4) of the ID Act, 1947 to the Labour Commissioner H.P.

Shimla.

9. The Labour Commissioner, Himachal Pradesh

Shimla, vide Notification No. 11-3/93 (Lab) ID/2014-Kullu dated

05.12.2014 (Annexure P-V) referred the Industrial Dispute to

the Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal Dharamshala, H.P. for

adjudication on the following question:

"Whether time to time termination of the services

of Sh. Bir Singh son of Shri Paras Ram, R/o Village

Linghar, Post Office Kharihar, Tehsil & Distt. Kullu,

H.P. during year 2000 to year 2010 and finally

during April, 2010 by the Divisional Forest Officer,

Parbati Forest Division Shamshi, District Kullu,

H.P., without complying with the provisions of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, is legal and

justified? If not, what amount of back wages,

seniority, past service benefits and compensation

5

the above worker is entitled to from the above

employer(s)?"

10. The respondent had filed claim petition (Annexure

P-VI) under reference No. 342/14 before the Labour Court-

cum-Industrial Tribunal Kangra at Dharamshala on 16.12.2014

directing the appellant/State to take back the respondent in

service and continue from the date of his appointment. The

said claim petition was decided by the Labour Court, vide

award dated 21.11.2017 (Annexure P-I) directing

reinstatement of the respondent forthwith holding the

petitioner in continuous uninterrupted service with the

respondent from 2000 to 2010. The respondent was held to be

in continuous service with all consequential benefits, except

back wages.

11. The appellant/State feeling aggrieved by the

aforesaid award challenged the same before the learned

Single Judge of this Court by filing CWP No. 8386 of 2021. The

learned Single Judge, while admitting the writ petition on

27.07.2023 allowed the application (CMP No. 10900/2022) filed

by the respondent under Section 17-B of the ID Act, 1947 for

grant of full wages last drawn by the respondent, inclusive of

6

allowances, which order is under challenge, by way of the

present appeal.

12. The learned Single Judge, while allowing the

application noticed that the impugned award directing

reinstatement of the respondent was passed on 21.11.2017

and respondent had submitted his joining on 18.01.2018. The

petition was filed on 30.12.2021 and operation of the

impugned award was stayed on 03.01.2022. Since, there was

considerable long delay in assailing the order passed by the

Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, it was observed that the

application duly supported by the affidavit would go on to

show that applicant was unemployed and he was unable to get

employment anywhere either in government/semi government

and private institutions and therefore, he was not gainfully

employed in any establishment since his termination.

Arguments of counsel for the appellants-

S t ate:-

13. Counsel for the appellants-State, while placing

reliance upon the bare provisions of Section 17-B of the ID Act,

1947 submitted that the provision mandates that in case of an

award directing reinstatement which is challenged in the High

Court or the Supreme Court, the employer is liable to pay the

7

workman full wages last drawn during the pendency of such

proceedings. This is applicable, if the workman has not been

employed in any establishment during Yes. that period and

has filed an affidavit as such to that effect.

14. It is thus contention of the counsel for the

appellants-State that the workman had filed the necessary

affidavit along with the application only on 04.04.2022/

20.05.2022, respectively and therefore, the learned Single

Judge had erred in allowing the application under Section 17-B

of the ID Act, 1947 from the date of the Award dated

21.11.2017.

15. Reliance is placed upon the judgment of the learned

Single Judge passed by the Delhi High Court in W.P. (C)

1782/2019, titled as M/s Capital Maintenance Corporation

Vs. Government of NCT Delhi and Others, decided on

24.02.2022, wherein the provisions of Section 17-B of the ID

Act, 1947 as such had been discussed and the necessity as

such to file the affidavit that the workman has not been

gainfully employed. Accordingly, it is contended that the said

judgment noted that Section 17-B of the ID Act, 1947, was

enacted to relieve hardship caused to the workman.

Furthermore, it was argued that because the workman was

8

doing agricultural work, he was not entitled to the benefit of

the said period from the date of passing of the Award. It is

further contended that even the son was a government

employee, the benefit could not have been granted

retrospectively from 21.11.2017, when the award was passed

and would be due from the belated filing of the application,

which was only prepared in April, 2022 and filed in May, 2022.

Arguments of counsel for the respondent-

workman:-

16. On the other hand, counsel for the respondent-

workman has submitted that Section 17-B of the ID Act, 1947,

is a beneficial piece of legislation. He argued that the

employee should not be penalized for belated filing of the writ

petition by the employer, which prevented him from receiving

benefits during the intervening period, as it was the

employer's duty to have filed the petition at the earliest. It is

contended that notice was issued in the petition on

03.03.2022, when the operation of the Award dated

21.11.2017 had been stayed. Prior to this, the workman had

already filed his joining report on 08.01.2018 (Annexure A-

2), which he had attached along with his application under

Section 17-B of the ID Act, 1947. Although these documents

9

were duly received by the Superintendent of the Divisional

Forest Officer, Parbati Forest Division, Shamshi, District Kullu,

Himachal Pradesh, the workman was not allowed to be

reinstated.

17. It is further submitted that apparently, an

application bearing CMP No. 20641 of 2024 for vacation of stay

was also filed before the learned Single Judge seeking

directions for the payment of the last drawn wages of Rs.110

per day and in the reply filed by the appellants-State, it had

admitted that Rs. 2,29,460/- had been duly vetted by the

Controller (F&A) in the O/o Principal Chief Conservator of

Forests, Himachal Pradesh, as the last wages drawn for the

period from 21.11.2017 to 07.08.2023. Thereafter, it was

opined to challenge the orders dated 27.07.2023, passed by

the learned Single Judge by filing a First Appeal (FAO).

Although the application for a non-vacation of stay was

contested, but no order has been passed on it, as of now by

the learned Single Judge.

18. Accordingly, it is submitted that the judgment of the

Delhi High Court in M/s Capital Maintenance Corporation

case (supra) is not applicable, as it was a case where the

workman had already been employed for a period of six years

10

in a school and had superannuated from the said school. The

workman had chosen not to apprise his counsel of this fact and

deliberately had filed a false affidavit before the Delhi High

Court. Therefore, in those facts and circumstances of the case,

a sum of Rs. 50,000/- was the only relief granted and the writ

petition was allowed, and the relief of reinstatement was not

granted. In fact, it was an admitted position that the workman

was employed, therein.

19. Counsel for the respondent-workman has placed

reliance upon the judgments of the Apex Court in Dena Bank

Vs. Kiritkumar T. Patel (1999) 2 SCC 106 and Dena Bank

Vs. Ghanshyam (2001) 5 SCC 169. Relying upon these

cases, Counsel contends that Section 17-B of the Industrial

Disputes (ID) Act, 1947, does not preclude High Courts from

granting better benefits if deemed just and equitable on the

facts of the case.

20. It is also contended that the Division Bench of the

Delhi High Court in Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs.

Santosh Kumari and Another (2012 SCC OnLine Del

4390) had held the reverse proposition: that the filing of a

belated application under Section 17-B of the ID Act, 1947,

would not grant the workman the right to seek payments from

11

the date of the award. In such circumstances, it was noticed

that the workman should be paid wages with effect from the

date of passing of the Award and the interest of both the

workman as well as the employer have to be kept in mind.

21. Similarly, reliance has been placed upon another

judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi in

Surender Kumar Vs. North Delhi Municipal Corporation

(2022) SCC OnLine Del 3451 , wherein it was held that

restricting a workman's claim for full wages to the date of filing

the application under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes

Act, 1947, was liable to be set aside and noting a delay of four

and a half months in filing the writ petition, the Court had

condoned the delay and directed the employer to pay the

statutory wages from the date of the Award, keeping in mind

the underlying objects and reasons of Section 17-B of the ID

Act, 1947.

Our R e asoning:-

22. It is in such circumstances that we have now to deal

with the issues in the appeal, as to whether the State could

take advantage of its own wrong having chosen not to file the

writ petition within a reasonable time and having only filed the

writ petition on 30.12.2021, after four years from the date of

12

passing of the Award dated 21.11.2017, and whether it could

preclude the workman from getting the benefits of the

application filed under Section 17-B of the ID Act, 1947.

23. We are of the considered opinion that the beneficial

aspect of the legislation cannot be lost sight of. Its purpose

and intent is to ensure that the award is implemented without

delay. Therefore, the employer must firstly avail of their

remedy at the earliest and cannot take advantage of delaying

tactics to the detriment of the poor employee. The employees

having fought an uphill battle against the State to secure

reinstatement and having succeeded in their pursuit of justice,

cannot be denied the fruits of the litigation, especially when

the State had successfully delayed the filing of the petition by

four years and subsequently had obtained a stay order on

03.01.2022, leading to the employee expeditiously filing an

application, which was prepared on 04.04.2022 and filed on

20.05.2022.

24. The objects and reasons for enacting the provisions

of Section 17-B of the ID Act, 1947 reads as under:-

“When the Labour Courts pass award of

reinstatement, these are often contested by an

employer in the Supreme Court or High Court. It

was felt that the delay in the implementation of the

award causes hardship to the workman concerned.

It was, therefore, proposed to provide the payment

13

of wages last drawn by the workman concerned,

under certain conditions, from the date of the

award till the case is finally decided in the Supreme

Court or High Courts.”

25. It was in such circumstances that Section 17-B of

the ID Act, 1947, was incorporated into the Statute Book by

the Industrial Disputes (Amendment) Act, 1982 w.e.f.

21.08.1984 and it reads as under:

“17-B. Payment of full wages to workman

pending proceedings in higher courts- Where

in any case a Labour Court, Tribunal or National

Tribunal by its award directs reinstatement of any

workman and the employer prefers any

proceedings against such award in a High Court or

the Supreme Court, the employer shall be liable to

pay such workman, during the period of pendency

of such proceedings in the High Court or the

Supreme Court, full wages last drawn by him,

inclusive of any maintenance allowance admissible

to him under any rule if the workman had not been

employed in any establishment during such period

and an affidavit by such workman had been filed to

that effect in such Court;

Provided that where it is proved to the satisfaction

of the High Court or the Supreme Court that such

workman had been employed and had been

receiving adequate remuneration during any such

period or part thereof, the Court shall order that no

wages shall be payable under this section for such

period or part, as the case may be.”

26. From a reading of the Objects and Reasons of

Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes (ID) Act, 1947, it is clear

that delays in the implementation of an award caused

hardship to the workman concerned so to mitigate this, a

provision was made for the payment of interim relief equal to

14

the last drawn wages from the date of the award. Under the

substantive part of Section 17-B, this benefit of full wages last

drawn is made mandatory upon the filing of an affidavit stating

that the workman is not employed. This liability arises when an

award directs reinstatement and the employer challenges the

award in the High Court or the Supreme Court, and the

proceedings remain pending in those higher Courts. The

proviso states that if the workman was employed and received

adequate remuneration during any such period or part thereof,

no wages shall be payable for that period or part, as the case

may be. Therefore, the quantification is left to the concerned

Court, solely to ensure that the benefit is denied only in cases

of actual employment period.

27. In the first case of Dena Bank (supra), decided in

the year 1999, the Apex Court had dealt with the issue of "full

wages last drawn" under Section 17-B of the ID Act, 1947.

Relying on the Statement of Objects and Reasons, the Court

had concluded that this benefit was intended to relieve the

hardship caused to the workman on account of delays in

implementing the order. Consequently, it was held that the

object underlying the provision was to relieve the workman’s

hardship to a certain extent. Such payments cannot be

15

recovered or refunded in any manner, even if the Award was

set aside. Therefore, the workman was entitled to the full

wages last drawn, and not any revised wages that may have

been given to similarly situated workmen.

28. In the second case of Dena Bank (supra), decided

in the year 2001, the primary issues were whether the

employer was liable to pay full salary from the date of filing of

the writ petition or whether the salary was to be paid at par

with other employees working on the same post, and whether

the workman was entitled to regular pay-scale instead of the

Rs.900/- per month, he last drew as wages. Resultantly, it was

held that the relevant provisions empowered the Courts to

grant more just and equitable interim benefits based on the

facts of the case, and that such excess amounts would be

liable to be refunded, if the writ petition was allowed, however,

there could be no recovery of the actual wages last drawn.

The relevant part reads as under:-

“12. We have mentioned above that the import

of Section 17-B admits of no doubt that

Parliament intended that the workman should get

the last drawn wages from the date of the award

till the challenge to the award is finally decided

which is in accord with the Statement of the

objects and reasons of the Industrial Disputes

(Amendment) Act, 1982 by which Section 17- B

was inserted in the Act. We have also pointed out

above that Section 17-B does not preclude the

16

High Courts or this Court from granting better

benefits more just and equitable on the facts of a

case -- than contemplated by that provision to a

workman. By interim order the High Court did not

grant relief in terms of Section 17-B, nay, there is

no reference to that section in the orders of the

High Court, therefore, in this case the question of

payment of full wages last drawn to the

respondent does not arise. In the light of the

above discussion the power of the High Court to

pass the impugned order cannot but be upheld

so the respondent is entitled to his salary in

terms of the said order.

13. It must, however, be pointed out that while

pasing an interlocutory order the interests of the

employer should not be lost sight of. Even

though the amount paid by the employer under

Section 17-B to the workman cannot be directed

to be refunded in the event he loses the case in

the writ petition (see Dena Bank case

1

) any

amount over and above the sum payable under

the said provision, has to be refunded by him. It

will, therefore, be in the interests of justice to

ensure, if the facts of the case so justify, that

payment of any amount over an above the

amount payable under Section 17-B to him, is

ordered to be paid on such terms and conditions

as would enable the employer to recover the

same.

14. It is brought to our notice that pursuant to

the orders of the High Court under challenge the

appellant had paid the amount to the

respondent. It is clarified that if the appellant

succeeds in the writ petition, it will be entitled to

recover the difference of amount (i.e. amount

paid under the impugned order less the amount

payable under Section 17-B of the Act) from the

respondent in accordance with law.”

29. Counsel for the respondent-workman has rightly

placed reliance upon the Division Bench judgment of the Delhi

High Court in Santosh Kumari (supra). In that case, the Court

had considered whether the entitlement under Section 17-B of

17

the ID Act, 1947, should run from the date of the Award or

from the date of the application. The employer had contested

this on the grounds of belated filing of the application.

Consequently, it was held that it was obligatory for a workman

to explain any delay and file an affidavit and workman cannot

claim the benefits of Section 17-B for several years in arrears

without an explanation, as it would be impossible for an

employer to establish whether the workman was gainfully

employed during that delayed period. Therefore, the Division

Bench in various cases had accordingly granted benefits,

choosing not to interfere, if there was no delay in filing the

application, but choosing to interfere when there was an

unexplained delay.

30. The said view was thereafter followed in Surender

Kumar’s case (supra) ten years later. In that case, it was held

that the entitlement to wages under Section 17-B hinges on

whether the workman remained unemployed since his

termination, and that this benefit must be granted from the

date of the Award. Therefore, even if an application is filed

belatedly, the workman can still be given the said benefit while

placing reliance upon the provisions of the second case of

Dena Bank (supra). Resultantly, it was held that the words of

18

the statute must be understood in their natural and ordinary

grammatical sense unless such a conclusion leads to

absurdity.

31. Accordingly, the appeal was allowed, since the

Award had been passed on 31.08.2019, and the State had

taken four and a half months to file the writ petition and the

workman filed his applications immediately after a period of

nine months from his first appearance in the Court.

Consequently, it was held that the delay in filing the

application could not work to the detriment of the workman.

The relevant portion reads as under:-

”12. A perusal of the abovementioned judgment

shows that the general rule is that the workman is

entitled to the benefits under Section 17-B of the

Act from the date of passing of award unless it is

shown that the workman has been indolent and

negligent in not pursuing the relief under Section

17-B of the Act and has filed his application under

Section 17-B of the Act after considerable delay or

at his whim and fancy.

13. In view of the above, the law is clear that

ordinarily the payment of wages under Section 17-

B of the Act would be from the date of passing of

award and only in cases of undue delay on the

part of the workman in approaching the Court, the

payment can be directed to be made from the

date of filing of application under Section 17-B of

the Act.

14. As stated earlier, the Apex Court in Dena

Bank (supra) has held that the Statement of

Objects and Reasons for inserting Section 17-B of

the Act is to ensure that the workman does not

continue to live in penury and await the final

outcome of the challenge to the award of

19

reinstatement. Once the award of reinstatement

has been passed, the employer should reinstate

the workman. The employer cannot be permitted

to keep the workman in limbo just by challenging

the award and even if the employer fails to get a

stay of the award, the employer cannot be

permitted to not allow the workman from working

and at the same time he also cannot be permitted

not to pay wages to the workman as this would go

against the purpose of inserting Section 17-B of

the Act.”

32. The Full Bench of the Kerala High Court took a

similar view in The South Indian Workers Congress Vs.

Sree Sankara University of Sanskrit (2010) 3 SCT 846 .

The Court held that an unemployed workman was entitled to

receive wages under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes

Act from the date when the writ petition was instituted,

provided the workman satisfied the Court by filing an affidavit

stating that he had been unemployed since that date. In that

case, the industrial award was passed in favour of the

workman on 14.11.2005. The application under Section 17-B

was allowed despite a delay in filing, against which the

proceedings had been preferred. Resultantly, it was held that

the workman was entitled to receive wages from an anterior

date prior to the institution of the proceedings initiated by the

employer, to give proper effect to the words employed by the

Legislature. It was accordingly held that the court only needed

20

to be satisfied by the filing an affidavit stating that the

workman was unemployed from the date when the

proceedings were instituted. The reference was answered

accordingly.

33. Thus, keeping in view the overall perspective, and

the fact that the Statement of Objects and Reasons provided

that the purpose was to ensure payment of the wages last

drawn due to delays in implementing the Award, it would not

lie in the mouth of the appellant-State to object. The State

delayed filing of the writ petition for a period of four years,

despite the petitioner having submitted his joining report on

18.01.2018 well within three months of the Award passed in

his favour on 21.11.2017. The appellants-State had taken its

sweet time as such in filing the writ petition on 30.12.2021,

had obtained a stay on 03.01.2022. Consequently, it cannot

now argue that the payment of the last drawn wages, under

Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, should only be

granted from the date the application and affidavits were filed.

The State cannot rely on a strict interpretation of the Section

to escape this liability, especially since it failed to explain

satisfactorily the delay in filing the writ petition in any manner.

21

No valid reasons for filing the writ petition

belatedly:-

34. We are of the considered opinion that the delay in

filing the writ petition has been hardly explained. Apparently,

for the first time, the appellants-State had acted upon the

matter on 16.04.2018, when they had issued a letter to the

Conservator of Forests, Kullu, seeking a legal opinion on

whether the Award should be complied with or agitated. The

matter was then referred to the Additional Chief Secretary

(Forests) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh on

27.10.2018 to render a legal opinion. It was only on

26.02.2019 that a response was received from the Additional

Chief Secretary (Forests), opining that the Award was unfit for

further agitation. However, on account of the Finance

Department objecting to the same, it was directed that action

be taken on the ground that a connected matter of the

workman was pending and as he had also filed an Execution

Petition in the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Senior

Division), Kullu. Therefore, justification was given that the writ

petition could not be filed immediately after the decision of the

Labour Court. The matter had again been taken up on

23.08.2021 to seek legal opinion. Approval was given on

22

17.09.2021, and the Additional Chief Secretary (Forests) had

finally granted approval on 21.09.2021. It is thus apparent that

the appellant-State had initially decided not to contest the

same, as per the opinion given by the Law Department and the

Finance Department. The relevant portion of the explanation

given in the writ petition reads as under:-

“The impugned award has been opined as unfit

for further agitation by the Ld. Dy. District

Attorney, Labour Court Kangra at Dharamshala.

In the facts and circumstances of the case, this

Department tends to agree with the opinion so

tendered by Dy. District Attorney as the

impugned award passed by the Ld. Court

appears to be just, proper and in consonance

with the scheme of things in envisaged in the

Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. The Forest

Department is, therefore advised to contemplate

implementing the impugned award as assailing

the same further is not going to achieve any

fruitful purpose.”

35. It is thus apparent that the State only took into

account the objections of the Finance Department and the

Administrative Department had waken up from its slumber

(Annexure P-VIII) to file the writ petition.

36. A perusal of Annexure P-VIII would also go on to

show that the Government took its sweet time to process the

filing, kick-starting the process of challenging the Award only

because the execution proceedings had begun. Therefore, the

23

Government cannot take advantage of its own belated filing of

the writ petition to the detriment or prejudice of the workman.

37. However, it is clarified that the right to receive

wages would only continue until the workman reaches the age

of superannuation, as an issue has been raised regarding that

aspect.

38. Resultantly, we do not find any ground to interfere

with the well reasoned orders passed by the learned Single

Judge and we uphold the same. Accordingly, the present

appeal stands dismissed.

39. Pending miscellaneous application(s) if any, shall

also stand disposed of.

(G.S. Sandhawalia)

Chief Justice

(Bipin Chander Negi )

Judge

18

th

July, 2026

(C.M. Thakur/Munish Thakur)