Himachal Pradesh High Court
COPC/1430/2026 of AJAY KUMAR BADREL Vs CHANDER PARKASH VERMA on 24 September 2026
COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA COPC No. 1430 of 2026 Date of decision: 24.09.2026 Ajay Kumar Badrel ...Petitioner. Versus Chander Prakash Verma ...Respondent. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Romesh Verma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. Naresh K. Sharma,
Citations and Judicial Treatment
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…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA COPC No. 1430 of 2026 Date of decision: 24.09.2026 Ajay Kumar Badrel
...Petitioner. Versus Chander Prakash Verma ...Respondent.
Coram:
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Romesh Verma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. Naresh K. Sharma, Advocate. For the respondent : Mr. Baldev Singh Negi, Additional Advocate General. Romesh Verma, Judge (Oral): The present petition has been filed alleging non- compliance of the judgment passed by this Court in CWP No. 6776 of 2026, titled as Ajay Kumar Badrel vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & another.
2. On 23.09.2026, this Court had directed learned Additional Advocate General to have instruction in the matter. Today, learned Additional Advocate General has placed on record copy of the order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No. 16472 of 2026, titled as Ajay Kumar Badrel vs. State of H.P. & another, decided on 22.09.2026, whereby it has been observed that the petitioner’s representation seeking transfer from Mandi to Shimla has been favourably considered by the Department and he has accordingly been posted at Shimla in the Directorate, with an
Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
assurance that he will not be disturbed before the completion of normal tenure.
3. Since this Court had directed the respondent to decide the representation and the same has been decided by the respondent, therefore, no further order is required to be passed in the present petition and the same is closed. Notice is discharged.
4. Needless to say, the petitioner shall be at liberty to avail appropriate remedies in case his grievance still remains unredressed. (Romesh Verma)
Judge September 24, 2026. (Nisha)