Himachal Pradesh High Court
COPC/1432/2026 of REENA SHARMA Vs DEVESH KUMAR AND OTHERS on 23 September 2026
HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA COPC No. 1432/2026 Decided on: 23.09.2026 Reena Sharma …..Petitioner Versus Devesh Kumar & ors. ….Respondents ______________________________________________________________ Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Romesh Verma, Judge. Whether
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.
2026:HHC:41162 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA
COPC No. 1432/2026
Decided on: 23.09.2026
Reena Sharma
…..Petitioner
Versus
Devesh Kumar & ors.
….Respondents ______________________________________________________________
Coram:
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Romesh Verma, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Ms. Mamta Garg, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. Baldev Singh Negi, Addl. A.G.
Romesh Verma, Judge (oral)
The present petition has been filed alleging non- compliance of order, dated 27.02.2026, as passed by this Court in CWP No. 2057/2026.
Learned Additional Advocate General has placed on record copy of office order, dated 23.09.2026, whereby case of the petitioner has been considered and accepted, relevant portion whereof reads as under:- “In compliance to the Hon'ble High Court order and as per Govt. letter dated 30.12.2025, the petitioner in above said CWP are allowed higher pay scale after the two years of regular services subject to final outcome of LPA filed in CWP
1Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.
No. 4830/2023 titled as Inder Singh and any other Legal remedies. The DDO concerned is hereby directed to fix the pay of the petitioner and release the arrear as per Finance Department instruction from time to time with the condition that in case the outcome LPA in favour of the Department, the petitioner are bound to refund the amount of arrear so paid to them. However, an undertaking to this effect may be obtained from the petitioner that the overpayment if any, found, in later stage shall be recovered from them accordingly. If the said benefit has already been released in favour of any of the petitioners in above said Ex. Petition/CWP, then it may be ensured that double benefit may not be released in favour of any of them. The entry be also made in the service book of individual concerned. May inform the parties accordingly.”
3. Though, the learned counsel for the petitioner has acknowledged the aforesaid fact, however she seeks liberty to file an appropriate application for revival of the instant petition in case her grievance still remains unaddressed. Liberty, as prayed for, is granted.
4. In view of above, nothing remains to be adjudicated in the instant petition and the same is closed, with liberty, as aforesaid. The petition stands disposed of.
(Romesh Verma) 23.09.2026
Judge (pankaj)