Himachal Pradesh High Court
COPC/938/2026 of ARJUN SINGH Vs RAKESH KANWAR AND ANOTHER on 29 July 2026
HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA COPC No. 938/2026 Decided on: 29.07.2026 Arjun Singh …..Petitioner Versus Rakesh Kanwar & anr. ….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:31494 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA
COPC No. 938/2026
Decided on: 29.07.2026
Arjun Singh
…..Petitioner
Versus
Rakesh Kanwar & anr. ….Respondents ______________________________________________________________
Coram:
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Romesh Verma, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Sourav Sharma, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. Baldev Singh Negi, Addl. A.G.
Romesh Verma, Judge (oral)
Notice. Mr. Baldev Singh Negi, learned Additional Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice.
The present petition has been filed alleging violation of order, dated 23.3.2026, as passed by this Court in CWP No. 3471/2026.
The matter was taken up in pre-lunch session and learned Additional Advocate General sought time to have current instructions in the matter.
1Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.
In post-lunch session, Learned Additional Advocate General has placed on record copy of office order, dated 21.7.2026, whereby the Director of School Education, Shimla, has directed the Principal of concerned school to fix pay of the petitioner for the period, he served on contract basis (TGT) at the 60% minimum of revised pay scale alongwith such hike to which he is entitled to, in terms of revised notification from 1.1.2016, till his regularization subject to final outcome of LPA.
Faced with the situation, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present petition can be closed at this stage, with liberty to file an appropriate application for revival of the instant petition in case grievance of the petitioner still remains to be unaddressed.
In view of above, nothing remains to be adjudicated in the instant petition and the same is closed, however with liberty, as aforesaid. Notices are discharged.
(Romesh Verma) 29.07.2026
Judge (pankaj)