Himachal Pradesh High Court
Jagdish Kumar vs . State Of Hp And Ors on 15 December, 2025
Author: Jyotsna Rewal Dua
Bench: Jyotsna Rewal Dua
Jagdish Kumar Vs. State of HP and Ors .
CWP No.7206 of 2025 15.12.2025 Present: Mr. J. K. Verma and Mr. Mayank Verma, Advocates, for the petitioner.
Mr. Sikandar Bhushan, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents No. 1, 2 and 4.
of Mr. Sohail Khan, Advocate vice Mr. Rajesh Prakash, Advocate for respondent No.3.
rt List alongwith CWP No.7208 of 2025 during third week of March 2026.
Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge December 15, 2025 (R.Atal) ::: Downloaded on - 16/12/2025 20:35:43 :::CIS Harbinder Singh Vs. State of HP and Ors .
CWP No.15230 of 202515.12.2025 Present: Mr. Nand Lal Chauhan, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Sikandar Bhushan, Deputy Advocate General, for the respondents.
of At the oral request of learned counsel for the petitioner, Accountant General (A&E) Himachal rt Pradesh, Shimla is impleaded as respondent No.5.
Mr. T.R.Sharma, leaned counsel, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of newly impleaded respondent No.5.
Learned counsel for respondent No.5 to have instructions in the matter in view of instructions dated 17.11.2025 and 24.11.2025 placed on record by respondents No.1 to 4-State.
List on 31.12.2025.
Amended memo of parties be also filed in the meanwhile.
Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge December 15, 2025 (R.Atal) ::: Downloaded on - 16/12/2025 20:35:43 :::CIS Ajay Bhardwaj and ors Vs. State of HP and Ors .
CWP No.17208 of 202515.12.2025 Present: Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Sumit Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioners.
Mr. Sikandar Bhushan, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents No.1 and 2.
of Mr. Abhay Bhushan, Advocate vice Mr. Sarthak Mehta, Advocate, for respondent rtNo.3 Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that respondent No.3 has been adjusted at some other place suitable to her and she has joined at the transferred station.
In the changed circumstances as pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioners, let learned Deputy Advocate General to have instructions in the matter, more particularly, with regard to enforcement of office order dated 31.10.2025 (Annexure P-1).
List on 16.12.2025.
Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge December 15, 2025 (R.Atal) ::: Downloaded on - 16/12/2025 20:35:43 :::CIS Niharu Vs. State of HP and Ors .
CWP No.18212 of 202515.12.2025 Present: Mr. Sandeep K Pandey, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Sikandar Bhushan, Deputy Advocate General, for the respondents.
of Learned Deputy Advocate General has placed on record office instructions dated 11.12.2025 rt from the Executive Engineer, Chopal Division, HPPWD Chopal.
Taking note of the above office instructions, this matter is adjourned to 05.01.2026 when fresh instructions, in terms of intent and import of instructions placed on record today, be obtained.
Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge December 15, 2025 (R.Atal) ::: Downloaded on - 16/12/2025 20:35:43 :::CIS Narender Singh Vs. State of HP and Ors .
CWP No.18898 of 202515.12.2025 Present: None for the petitioner.
Mr. Sikandar Bhushan, Deputy Advocate General, for the respondents.
of There is no appearance on behalf of the petitioner. In the interest of justice, list on 16.12.2025.
rt Jyotsna Rewal Dua
Judge
December 15, 2025
(R.Atal)
::: Downloaded on - 16/12/2025 20:35:43 :::CIS
Ruchi Raj Thakur Vs. NLU Shimla .
CWP No.926 of 201815.12.2025 Present: Mr Sanjeev Bhushan, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Sohail Khan, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Sai Amar Vivek Aggarwal, Sr. Advocate (through V.C.) with Mr. Gaurav Thakur, Advocate, for the respondent.
of As prayed for, list on 10.03.2026 rt Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge December 15, 2025 (R.Atal) ::: Downloaded on - 16/12/2025 20:35:43 :::CIS NHAI Vs. Prem Lal and Others .
OMP(M) No.92 of 202415.12.2025 Present: Ms. Sneh Bhimta, Advocate, for the applicant/appellant.
Mr. Yuyutsu Singh Thakur, Advocate, for respondent No.7.
of OMP No.1575/2025 in OMP(M) No.92/2024 Appellant-applicant has moved this application rt for effecting service upon respondent No.4(c) Smt. Kanta Devi D/o late Sh. Durgu by way of substituted mode of service through publication. The application is with the averments that legal representatives of deceased respondent No.4 were to be served on the available address of deceased respondent No.4. Consequently, respondents No.4(a), 4(d), 4(e) and 4(f) were served, who are sons and grand-sons of deceased respondent No.4.
2. Notice for service of respondent No.4(c)-D/o deceased respondent No.4, was received by her brothers i.e. respondent No.4(a)/4(d), but refused to accept it by stating that she is married and currently residing in her in-law's house.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that brothers of respondent No.4 (c) despite request, have not obliged with address of respondent No.4(c), necessitating moving of this application.
4. In view of above, I am inclined to accept the reasoning given by the applicant, seeing service of respondent No.4(c) by way of publication. Accordingly, ::: Downloaded on - 16/12/2025 20:35:43 :::CIS the application is allowed. Respondent No.4(c) be served .
through publication in two newspapers having wide circulation in the area concerned as empanelled with the Registry. Necessary charges be deposited within two weeks. Notice be issued to respondent No.4(c), returnable within six weeks. Application to stand of disposed of.
OMP(M) No. 92 of 20245. rtLearned counsel for respondent No.7 states that despite his efforts, he has not been in a position to gather the address of respondent No.4(b). Learned counsel for the applicant seeks and is allowed two weeks' time to take steps for service of respondent No.4(b).
List after six weeks.
Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge December 15, 2025 (R.Atal) ::: Downloaded on - 16/12/2025 20:35:43 :::CIS NHAI Vs. Amrit Lal .
OMP(M) No.312 of 202515.12.2025 Present: Ms. Sneh Bhimta, Advocate, for the applicant/appellant.
Mr. Shubham Kashyap, Advocate, for the respondent.
of No reply is intended to be filed by the respondent.
rt Heard. Prayer in this application condoning the delay in filing the appeal against the is for impugned judgment dated 03.07.2024. The application gives out cogent reasons and explanation for condoning the delay. In view of aforesaid, the application is allowed. Delay in filing the appeal is condoned. The application stands disposed of.
Arb. Appeal No._____ of 2025(ARBST No.38027 of 2025 Be registered. List for consideration after six weeks.
OMP No.____of 2025 (OMPST No.38129/2025) Heard. Subject to deposit of entire awarded amount alongwith up to date interest in the Registry of this Court within a period of four weeks from today, operation and execution of the impugned judgment dated 03.07.2024, passed by the learned District Judge Mandi, H.P. in Arbitration Case No.136 of 2023 (National Highways Authority of India Versus Amrit Lal), shall remain stayed. The application stands disposed of.
Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge December 15, 2025 (R.Atal) ::: Downloaded on - 16/12/2025 20:35:43 :::CIS NHAI Vs. Jagarnath Sharma .
OMP(M) No.367 of 202515.12.2025 Present: Ms. Sneh Bhimta, Advocate, for the applicant/appellant.
Respondent ex-parte.
of Heard. Prayer in this application is for condoning the delay in filing the appeal against the impugned judgment dated 01.08.2024. The application gives rt out cogent reasons and explanation for condoning the delay. In view of aforesaid, the application is allowed. Delay in filing the appeal is condoned. The application stands disposed of.
Arb. Appeal No._____ of 2025 (ARBST No.38023 of 2025 Be registered.
List for consideration after six weeks.
OMP No.____of 2025 (OMPST No.38114/2025) Heard. Subject to deposit of entire awarded amount alongwith up to date interest in the Registry of this Court within a period of four weeks from today, operation and execution of the impugned judgment dated 01.08.2024, passed by the learned District Judge Mandi, H.P. in Arbitration Case No.120 of 2023 (National Highways Authority of India Versus Jagarnath Sharma.), shall remain stayed. The application stands disposed of.
Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge December 15, 2025 (R.Atal) ::: Downloaded on - 16/12/2025 20:35:43 :::CIS Ishwar Singh Vs. HPSEBL and Anr .
CWP No.2716 of 202315.12.2025 Present: Ms. Ayushi Sharma, Advocate vice Mr. Prem P.Chauhan, Advocate, for the petitioner.
None for the respondents.
of Reply has still not been filed.
There is no appearance for the respondents. rt Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks an adjournment.
List after six weeks.
Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge December 15, 2025 (R.Atal) ::: Downloaded on - 16/12/2025 20:35:43 :::CIS Nanak Chand and anr Vs. Doli Raj and Ors .
R.P. No.63 of 202415.12.2025 Present: Mr. Ashok Kumar, Advocate, for the petitioners.
Ms. Simran, Advocate, for respondent No.1.
Mr. Mohinder Verma, Advocate, for of respondent No.2.
Mr. Tek Chand, Advocate, for respondent rtNo.3.
Mr. S.K. Banyal, Advocate, for respondent No.5 At the request of learned counsel for the petitioners, list after three weeks.
Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge December 15, 2025 (R.Atal) ::: Downloaded on - 16/12/2025 20:35:43 :::CIS Anu Saini and Ors Vs. State of HP and Ors .
Ex.Pet No.1682 of 202515.12.2025 Present: Mr. Naresh Kaul, Advocate, for the petitioners.
Mr. L.N.Sharma, Additional Advocate General, for the respondents.
of Despite sufficient time having been granted to the respondents, compliance affidavit/reply has still rt not been filed.
Learned Additional Advocate General, prays for and is granted two weeks further time for the purpose as final opportunity. List immediately thereafter.
Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge December 15, 2025 (R.Atal) ::: Downloaded on - 16/12/2025 20:35:43 :::CIS Shresta Devi Vs. CSKHPKV .
Ex.Pet No.1947 of 202515.12.2025 Present: Mr. Bonit Prakash, Advocate vice Mr. A. K Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Janesh Mahajan, Advocate, for the respondent.
of Respondent has filed the compliance affidavit appending therewith consideration order dated rt 18.03.2025, rejecting the case of petitioner for grant of pension/family pension.
2. In terms of the consideration order, petitioner's husband had to his credit 8 years, 9 months and 22 days of regular service at the time of his superannuation on 31.08.2009. Additionally, he had served for 8 years, 5 months and 2 days as a daily wage employee (w.e.f. 1993 to 2000). Clearly, in terms of the decision rendered in Sunder Singh Versus The State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors.1, five years daily wage service rendered by the petitioner's husband was to be computed as one year regular service. This one year of regular service when put in the kitty of regular service rendered by petitioner's husband, makes his regular service at 9 years, 9 months and 22 days.
1Civil Appeal No.6309 of 2017, decided on 08.03.2018 ::: Downloaded on - 16/12/2025 20:35:43 :::CIS Prima-facie, it appears that in view of .
Sunder Singh1, as explained in Balo Devi & others Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others2, service rendered by petitioner's husband qualifies for pension under the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. It also of appears that respondent had not applied due mind while rtpassing the consideration order. The consideration order appears to have been issued mechanically, without due regard to the law and the decisions governing the field, which were directed to be kept in mind while deciding the case of the petitioner.
Before proceeding any further, at the request of learned counsel for the respondent, a week's further time is granted to respondent to come up with fresh consideration order, failing which, respondent shall remain present in the Court on the next date.
List on 26.12.2025.
Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge December 15, 2025 (R.Atal) 2 Civil Appeal No.4792 of 2022, decided on 18.07.2022 ::: Downloaded on - 16/12/2025 20:35:43 :::CIS Deepa Vs. State of HP and anr .
Ex.Pet No.2100 of 202515.12.2025 Present: Mr. Rakesh K Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Vishwadeep Sharma, Additional Advocate General, for the respondents.
of Respondents have filed the compliance affidavit appending therewith office order dated rt 25.08.2025. In terms of the compliance affidavit, petitioner's services though have been regularized at par with her counterparts, but monetary benefits have been restricted to her from the date of actual joining on regularization. Learned counsel takes an objection, which prima-facie appears to be justified that in terms of the judgment in question, respondents were bound to release all consequential benefits to the petitioner or in other words, all monetary benefits as were released to the petitioner's counterparts, were to be released to the petitioner from her date of retrospective regularization.
At the request of learned Additional Advocate General, an opportunity of one week is granted to the respondents to do the needful, failing which, appropriate order shall be passed in the matter.
List on 29.12.2025.
Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge December 15, 2025 (R.Atal) ::: Downloaded on - 16/12/2025 20:35:43 :::CIS Ashwani Kumar and Ors Vs. State of HP and Ors .
CWP No.2740 of 202015.12.2025 Present: Mr. Suneet Goel, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Vivek Negi, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. L.N.Sharma, Additional Advocate General, for the respondents.
of CMP No.26232 of 2025 rtArguments heard. Order reserved.
Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge December 15, 2025 (R.Atal) ::: Downloaded on - 16/12/2025 20:35:43 :::CIS Dr.Satya Prakash Katiyal Vs. State of HP and Ors.
.
Ex.Pet. No.572 of 202512.12.2025 Present: Mr. Udit Shaurya Kaushik, Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms. Menka Raj Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General for respondent No. 1.
of Mr. Vishwajeet Singh, Advocate, for respondent No.2 rt Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 places on record office instructions from the Secretary Himachal Pradesh Private Educational Institutions Regularly Commission, which do not answer the queries raised in the previous order passed in the execution petition about payment of interest to the petitioner on account of delayed compliance with judgment.
2. Additionally, in terms of the office instructions, out of computation of amount of Rs.12,28,124/- payable to the petitioner, the said respondent had deducted a sum of Rs.1,22,812/-
towards income tax and further retained an amount of Rs.3,64,272/-as recovery towards alleged unauthorized stay of the petitioner in Government accommodation statedly in terms of the some office letter of the Director ::: Downloaded on - 16/12/2025 20:35:43 :::CIS of Estate GoHP, dated 25.11.2025.
.
3. Let learned counsel for respondent No.2 to have instructions about deduction of income tax and period over which the income tax has been spread over.
of Prima-facie, it appears that there does not vest any authority with respondent No.2 to order recovery of alleged unauthorized rt stay of the petitioner in the Government accommodation. In case, the petitioner is in arrears of any penal rent liable to be paid to the respondents, it is for the respondents to take appropriate action in that regard in accordance with law, but not by making unauthorized deductions from arrears for preventing the petitioner from getting fruits of his successful litigation. Instructions be placed on record positively by the next date of hearing.
4 The amount due and admissible to the petitioner be released in his favour by the next date of hearing, failing which, appropriate order shall be passed in the matter.
List on 31.12.2025.
Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge December 12, 2025 (R.Atal) ::: Downloaded on - 16/12/2025 20:35:43 :::CIS Nanak Chand Vs. State of HP and Ors .
CWP No.19594 of 202512.12.2025 Present: Mr. Hitender Verma, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Sikander Bhushan, Deputy Advocate General, for the respondents No. 1 to 3 of Mr. Rangil Singh, Advocate, for respondent No.6.
rt Notice. Mr. Sikander Bhushan, Deputy Advocate General and Mr. Rangil Singh, learned leaned counsel, appear and waive service of notice on behalf of the respondents No. 1 to 3 and respondent No.4, respectively.
Petitioner has grievance to the office order dared 18.09.2025 (Annexure P-8), passed by the respondents. According to the petitioner, the said office order is in contravention to the law laid down in CWPOA No. 513 of 2019 (Babu Ram Vs. State of H.P. and Others) decided on 25.08.2022.
Let reply be filed by the respondents within three weeks. List thereafter.
CMP No.30511 of 2025The application is disposed of with direction to the applicant to file typed copies of the documents in issue before the next date of hearing.
Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge December 12, 2025 (R.Atal) ::: Downloaded on - 16/12/2025 20:35:43 :::CIS Anil Kumar and Others Vs. State of HP and Ors .
CWP No.17406 of 202512.12.2025 Present: Mr. Vikrant Chandel, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Sikander Bhushan, Deputy Advocate General, for the respondents No. 1 to 5.
of Mr. Vinod Chauhan, Advocate, for respondent No.6.
rt CWP No. 17406/2025 CMP No.26750/2025 Petitioner places reliance upon decision rendered in CWP No. 11854 of 2024 (Vinod Kumar Vs. State of HP and Others) decided on 21.03.2025, in support of the relief claimed in the writ petition for including names of the petitioners under the ex-
servicemen quota in the recruitment process being undertaken by the respondents for filling in the posts of Constables. Further, pointing out to Annexure R-1, dated 21.02.2009, which incidentally has also been deliberated upon in Vinod Kumar (supra), it was highlighted that even an employment on contract basis cannot be termed as a civil employment; Civil employment would mean employment which is regular and where the official concerned is given the benefit of reservation as ex-serviceman; The ex-serviceman once ::: Downloaded on - 16/12/2025 20:35:43 :::CIS nominated/ appointed on contractual basis can be .
considered again against higher post against a vacancy reserved for Ex-servicemen on the basis of his seniority in the 'live register' till he is appointed on regular basis.
of The reply admits the factual position that petitioners have not been given civil employment as yet.
2. rt Learned counsel for respondent No.6 was confronted with the question as to why despite the admitted facts, clear instructions dated 21.02.2009 appended at Annexure R-1 with the reply and the judgment rendered in Vinod Kumar (supra), the respondents have not included/sponsored the names of the petitioners in the list for appointment against ex-
servicemen quota for recruitment to the post of Constable. At this stage, learned counsel prayed for and is allowed two days' time to place on record proper instructions in this regard on the next date, failing which, appropriate order shall be passed in the matter.
List on 16.12.2025.
Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge December 12, 2025 (R.Atal) ::: Downloaded on - 16/12/2025 20:35:43 :::CIS Sanjay Kumar Vs. State of HP and Ors .
CWP No.19266 of 202512.12.2025 Present: Ms. Salochna Rana, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Sikander Bhushan, Deputy Advocate General, for the respondents No. 1 to 3.
of CWP No. 19266/2025 CMP No.29693/2025 rt Following order passed in the matter on 05.12.2025, notices the gist of the petitioner's case against the impugned office order dated 20.11.2025, whereby he has been transferred as Block Technical Manager from Development Block Drang, District Mandi to Development Block Bharmour, District Chamba:-
"Notice. Mr. Rajat Choudhry, learned Assistant Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 3. Let learned Assistant Advocate General to have instructions from the respondents about the reasons for issuance of office order (Annexure P-1) dated 20.11.2025 as the petitioner alleges it to have been issued on the basis of D.O note of respondent No.6 at the instance of respondent No.5. It has also been urged that petitioner has only rendered seven months of service at the present station and did not give his consent for the transfer. List on 09.12.2025."::: Downloaded on - 16/12/2025 20:35:43 :::CIS
2. Sh. Suresh Kumar Sharma, Additional .
Director Agriculture, Himachal Pradesh, has attended the hearing. The officer has produced the record, which reveals that petitioner's transfer has been effected on the basis of a D.O note No. 2681 dated 09.10.2025.
of Under the impugned order, petitioner has been transferred vice respondent No.5, on the dotted lines as rt dictated in the D.O. note.
Though the final order impugned herein has been issued by the outsourcing agency i.e. respondent No.4, nonetheless, the order has been passed by respondent No.4, not in an independent exercise of the mind, but only on the basis of a D.O note. Further the officer present has also apprised that petitioner had not consented to his transfer from Development Block Darang, District Mandi to Development Block Bharmour, District Chamba, as is made out in the impugned order.
3. The above being the position, prima-facie, the impugned office order dated 20.11.2024 issued by respondent No.4 statedly on mutual basis, does not appear to be holding ring of truth or based upon some ::: Downloaded on - 16/12/2025 20:35:43 :::CIS independent exercise of mind. Hence, the impugned .
office order dated 20.11.2025 ( Annexure P-1) shall remain stayed qua the petitioner and the respondent No.5, till the next date.
of
4. Issue notice to respondent No.4 and 5, returnable for 08.01.2026, on taking steps within two days. rt Reply by the appearing respondents be filed in the meanwhile. Respondents No. 1 to 3 also apprise respondents No.4 and 5 about pendency of the writ petition and its next date of hearing.
List on 08.01.2026.
Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge December 12, 2025 (R.Atal) ::: Downloaded on - 16/12/2025 20:35:43 :::CIS Shashi Bhushan Vs. Director National Institute for Empowerment of Persons .
and Anr CWP No. 16652 of 2025 12.12.2025 Present: Mr. Vinay Mehta and Mr. Nell Roberts, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Balram Sharma, DSGI with Mr. Rajiv Sharma, Advocate, for he respondents.
of Learned Deputy Solicitor General of India rt prays for and is granted a week's time to examine the issue as to whether the writ petition is maintainable.
List thereafter.
Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge December 12, 2025 (R.Atal) ::: Downloaded on - 16/12/2025 20:35:43 :::CIS NHAI Vs. Bindra Devi .
Arb.Appeal No. 35 of 202512.12.2025 Present: Ms. Sneh Bhimta, Advocate, for the appellant Mr. Vikrant Chandel Advocate vice Mr. H.S.Rangra, Advocate for the respondents.
OMP No. 1566 of 2025of Ms. Shreya Chauhan, learned counsel, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the rt non-applicant/appellant.
2. This application has been moved by the applicants/respondents for release of the awarded amount in terms of the decision rendered in Arb.
Appeal No. 35 of 2025 (National Highway Authority of India Versus Bindra Devi), decided on 28.03.2025.
Learned counsel for the non-
applicant/appellant submits that the judgment rendered in this case on 28.03.2025 has not been assailed by the non-applicant/ appellant.
3. In view of the submissions made by learned counsel appearing for the non-applicant/appellant about judgment dated 28.03.2025 having not been assailed and the fact that more than eight months have gone by from the said decision, there appears to be no ::: Downloaded on - 16/12/2025 20:35:43 :::CIS impediment in allowing this application for release of .
the amount in terms thereof in favour of the applicant/respondent.
4. Accordingly, this application is allowed.
of Amount falling to the credit of the applicant/respondent in terms of the decision rendered in Arb. Appeal No.35 of 2025 is ordered to be released rt in his favour along with up-to-date interest. The amount be remitted in his bank account as per the details given in the application. The application stands disposed of..
Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge December 12, 2025 (R.Atal) ::: Downloaded on - 16/12/2025 20:35:43 :::CIS NHAI Vs. Amit and Ors .
OMP(M) No.312 of 202512.12.2025 Present: Ms. Sneh Bhimta, Advocate, for the applicant Mr. Malay Kaushal Advocate, for respondents No. 1 to 6.
of Learned counsel for the respondents submits that an application has been moved to allow rt the legal heirs of deceased respondent No.7 to join the proceedings. Let that application be placed on record.
Learned counsel for the applicant states that the requisite application for bringing on record the legal heirs of deceased respondent No.8 has also been filed. This application be also placed on record.
List after one week.
Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge December 12, 2025 (R.Atal) ::: Downloaded on - 16/12/2025 20:35:43 :::CIS NHAI Vs. Ami and Ors .
OMP(M) No.312 of 202412.12.2025 Present: Ms. Sneh Bhimta, Advocate, for the applicant Mr. Malay Kaushal Advocate, for respondents No. 1 to 6.
of Learned counsel for the respondents submits that an application has been moved to allow rt the legal heirs of deceased respondent No.7 to join the proceedings. Let that application be placed on record.
Learned counsel for the applicant states that the requisite application for bringing on record the legal heirs of deceased respondent No.8 has also been filed. This application be also placed on record.
List after one week.
Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge December 12, 2025 (R.Atal) ::: Downloaded on - 16/12/2025 20:35:43 :::CIS UOI & Ors Vs. Pritam Singh and Ors.
.
OMP(M) No.295 of 202512.12.2025 Present: Mr. Santosh Kumar, Advocate vice Mr. Sumeet Raj Sharma, Advocate, for the applicants Ms. Manjeet Kaur, Advocate vice Mr. Naveen K Bhardwaj, Advocate, for respondents No. 1 of to 3.
Mr. Sikander Bhushan, Deputy Advocate rt General, for respondent No.5.
Learned counsel for respondents No.1 to 3 apprised about the death of respondent No.4 after the service.
Learned counsel for the appellant/applicant seeks time to verify the above fact and to take appropriate steps.
At his request, list after four weeks.
Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge December 12, 2025 (R.Atal) ::: Downloaded on - 16/12/2025 20:35:43 :::CIS Bimla Chauhan Vs. State of HP and Anr .
Ex.Pet No.885 of 202512.12.2025 Present: Mr. Vikas Rajput, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Sikander Bhushan, Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent.
of Despite grant of final opportunity on 09.10.2025, rt respondents have still not filed the compliance affidavit/reply. Learned Deputy Advocate General prays for and is granted two weeks further time to do the needful at costs of Rs.1500/- to be paid to the petitioner on the next date of hearing.
Lsit on 31.12.2025.
Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge December 12, 2025 (R.Atal) ::: Downloaded on - 16/12/2025 20:35:43 :::CIS Suresh Kumar Vs. State of HP and Ors .
Ex.Pet No.1136 of 202512.12.2025 Present: Mr. Ajay Kumar Chauhan, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Sikander Bhushan, Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent.
of Compliance affidavit has still not been filed.
Final opportunity of two weeks is granted rt to the respondents for the purpose. List thereafter.
Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge December 12, 2025 (R.Atal) ::: Downloaded on - 16/12/2025 20:35:43 :::CIS Monika and Ors Vs. State of HP and Ors .
Ex.Pet No.1654 of 202512.12.2025 Present: Mr. M.A.Safee, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Sikander Bhushan, Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent. Learned Deputy Advocate General has of placed on record copy of office order dated 05.12.2025 passed by the Deputy Director of School Education (Elementary) District Bilaspur, H.P. conveying the rt stated compliance of the judgment rendered on 08.05.2025. The said office order cannot be said to be compliance of the judgment. It only states that a Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred by the respondent-Department against the decision rendered in CWP No. 4830 of 2023 ( Inder Singh Thakur vs. State of H.P. and others) decided alongwith connected matters on 07.04.2025, on the basis of which, the judgment in question was passed. Till the time, the judgment rendered in Inder Singh Thakur, is stayed, the respondents are bound to implement the same, of course, subject to the outcome of the LPA, if any filed against the same.
Let compliance affidavit/reply be filed within further two weeks. It is made clear that this shall be the final opportunity for the purpose.
List on 26.12.2025..
Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge December 12, 2025 (R.Atal) ::: Downloaded on - 16/12/2025 20:35:43 :::CIS Raju Ram Vs. State of HP and Ors .
Ex.Pet No.1688 of 202512.12.2025 Present: Ms. Anjali Soni Verma, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Sikander Bhushan, Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent.
of It is four hearings down the line, that the office instructions have been filed, which have come rt from the Executive Engineer HPPWD, Division Kangra.
As per these instructions, the judgment in question was rendered on the basis of decision rendered on 11.10.2023 in LPA No.196 of 2022 (Roop Lal Vs. State of H.P. and Others) [which has already attained finality after dismissal of SLP (C) No.1007 of 2024 (State of H.P and Others Vs. Roop Lal by the Hon'ble Apex Court.]; It cannot be implemented as the Jal Shakti Vibhag has filed a Review Petition before the Hon'ble Apex Court.
According to the office instructions, in view of filing of review petition, the respondents have decided to file Letters Patent Appeal against the judgment sought to be implemented.
2 It is well settled legal position that unless and until the judgment is set aside or stayed, the ::: Downloaded on - 16/12/2025 20:35:43 :::CIS same is liable to be implemented. The judgment in .
question was rendered on the basis of Roop Lal Vs. State of which, which has attained finality after the dismissal of SLP (C) No.1007 of 2024 (State of H.P and Others Vs. Roop Lal) decided on 18.03.2025.
of The judgment sought to be enforced was rendered on 19.06.2025 and it is still awaiting its rt implementation.
At the request made by learned Deputy Advocate General, two weeks' further time is granted to the respondents to implement the judgment in letter and spirit at costs of Rs.5000/- to be paid to the petitioner on the next date of hearing, failing which, appropriate order shall be passed in the matter.
List on 31.12.2025.
Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge December 12, 2025 (R.Atal) ::: Downloaded on - 16/12/2025 20:35:43 :::CIS Jyotio Swarup Sharma Vs. Devesh Kumar.
.
COPC No.1325 of 202512.12.2025 Present: Mr. Aman Sood, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Sikander Bhushan, Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent.
of Notice. Mr. Sikander Bhushan, learned Deputy Advocate General, accepts service of notice on rt behalf of the respondents. Reply/compliance affidavit be filed within two weeks. List thereafter.
Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge December 12, 2025 (R.Atal) ::: Downloaded on - 16/12/2025 20:35:43 :::CIS Anita Atrar. Vs. State of HP and Ors.
.
CWP No.19526 of 202512.12.2025 Present: Mr. M.A.Safee, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Y.P.S.Dhaulta, Addtional Advocate General for respondents No.1,2,4 to 6.
Ms. Komal Chaudhary, Advocate for of respondent No.3.
rt Notice. Mr. Y.P.S.Dhaulta, learned Additional Advocate General and Ms. Komal Chaudhary, learned counsel, appear and waive service of notice on behalf of respondents No.1,2,4 to 6 and respondent No.3, respectively.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that petitioner has exercised option for coming over to the Old Pension Scheme under CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, in terms of Annexure P-5, however, till date, respondent-State is not processing and forwarding her case for pension.
3. Let reply be filed by the respondents within three weeks, adverting to above grievances. In the meanwhile, respondent-State to also examine petitioner's case and if found eligible, her case be processed in accordance with law to respondent No.3, ::: Downloaded on - 16/12/2025 20:35:43 :::CIS by completing necessary codal formalities.
.
List after three weeks.
CMP No. 30494/2025Disposed of as not pressed at this stage.
of Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge December 12, 2025 rt (R.Atal) ::: Downloaded on - 16/12/2025 20:35:43 :::CIS Baboo Ram and Ors. Vs. State of HP and Ors.
.
CWP No.19550 of 202512.12.2025 Present: Mr. Tarun K Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Y.P.S.Dhaulta, Addtional Advocate General for the respondents.
of Notice. Mr. Y.P.S.Dhaulta, learned Additional Advocate General, appears and waives rt service of notice on behalf of respondents No.1 and 2. Issue notice to respondents No.3 to 10, returnable within four weeks, on taking steps within a week.
Petitioners are primarily with the grievance that services of their juniors (respondents No. 4 to 7) were regularized prior to regularization of petitioners' services.
Reply be filed within four weeks. List thereafter.
CMP No. 30120/2025Disposed of as not pressed at this stage.
Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge December 12, 2025 (R.Atal) ::: Downloaded on - 16/12/2025 20:35:43 :::CIS .
of rt ::: Downloaded on - 16/12/2025 20:35:43 :::CIS