Himachal Pradesh High Court

CMP/23798/2026 of HIRA SINGH Vs RAKESH KANWAR AND OTHERS on 8 October 2026

Cites 0, Cited by 0

Rakesh Kanwar and another CMP No. 23798 of 2026 in COPC No. 699 of 2025 8.10.2026 Present Mr. Munish Datwalia, Advocate, for the applicant/petitioner. Mr. Rajan Kahol and Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocate General with Mr. Ravi Chauhan and Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Ad-vocates General, for

Citations and Judicial Treatment

No citing decisions in the index yet

Cited by

0

Decisions in the index citing it

Cites

0

Decisions referred to

In this index

0

Of the decisions it cites

Overruled / Questioned

0

No negative treatment found

Loading the citing and cited decisions…

Hira Singh v. Rakesh Kanwar and another CMP No. 23798 of 2026 in COPC No. 699 of 2025 8.10.2026 Present Mr. Munish Datwalia, Advocate, for the applicant/petitioner. Mr. Rajan Kahol and Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocate General with Mr. Ravi Chauhan and Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Ad-vocates General, for the non- applicants/respondents. Mr. Ravi Chauhan, learned Deputy Advocate General, has placed on record communication dated 6.10.2026 issued under the signatures of Director School Education, Himachal Pradesh, enclosing therewith copy of order dated 10.6.2025, issued by Deputy Director of Elementary Education, Mandi, perusal whereof reveals that the latter authority vide aforesaid order considered the case of petitioner and granted benefit of increment on the post of Head Teacher on the analogy of CWP No. 2500 of 2021 titled Ranjit Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh. It is averred in the communication that petitioner retired on 31.12.2017. He filed CWP No. 2972 of 2025 on 15.2.2025 i.e. after his retirement. Arrears were to be calculated 36 months prior to the date of filing of CWP No. 16.2.2022, by which time, petitioner had retired and was not drawing any salary, therefore, he is not eligible for any arrears. Since respondents have considered the case of the petitioner in light of Ranjit Singh supra and rejected the same, nothing remains to be decided in the instant application, which is accordingly disposed of. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings in the appropriate court of law, qua his surviving grievances.

(Sandeep Sharma) Judge October 8, 2026 (vikrant)

You have used today's free searches. Sign in, for free, to keep searching without a limit.

Compass reads the judgments for you and finds the paragraphs for and against your question. Sign in to use it.

My Vault follows judgments for you and records every later decision that cites them. Sign in to keep one.

Sign in to download the court's PDF. The full text stays free to read here.

Sign in, for free, to download the court copy. Reading the full text here stays open to everyone.

Search and read Indian judgments without limits, save them to My Vault and find the relevant paragraphs with Compass.

Open the sign-in page instead