Himachal Pradesh High Court
COPC/1090/2026 of SUSHIL KUMAR Vs RAKESH KANWAR AND ANOTHER on 11 August 2026
HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA COPC No. 1090 of 2026 Date of decision: 11.08.2026. Sushil KUmar ...Petitioner. Versus Rakesh Kanwar & another ...Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Romesh Verma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. Harish
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:33782
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
COPC No. 1090 of 2026
Date of decision: 11.08.2026. Sushil KUmar
...Petitioner.
Versus
Rakesh Kanwar & another
...Respondents.
Coram:
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Romesh Verma, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. Harish Kumar, Advocate vice Mr. Rocky, Advocate.
For the respondent : Mr. Baldev Singh Negi, Addl. A.G.
Romesh Verma, Judge (Oral):
The present petition has been filed alleging non compliance of the judgment as passed by this Court in CWP No. 3833 of 2026 dated 01.04.2026.
2. The learned Additional Advocate General has placed on record office order dated 24.07.2026, which reads as follows:- “In compliance to the Hon'ble High Court order and as per Govt. letter dated 30.12.2025, the petitioner (who are initially appointed as TGT on contract basis) in above said COPC/CWP are allowed higher pay scale of 41600/- after the two years of regular services subject to final outcome of LPA filed in CWP 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
Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
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. Since the judgment passed by this Court stands fully complied with, nothing remains for adjudication in the instant petition and the same is closed. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
(Romesh Verma)
Judge 11th August, 2026. (kck)