Himachal Pradesh High Court
COPC/840/2026 of JAI RAM Vs ANJU SHARMA on 20 July 2026
HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA COPC No.840 of 2026 Date of decision:20.07.2026 Jai Ram ...Petitioner Versus Er.Anju Sharma ...Respondent Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Romesh Verma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. Bonit, Advocate, vice Mr. A.K. Gupta,
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.840 of 2026
Date of decision:20.07.2026
Jai Ram
...Petitioner
Versus
Er.Anju Sharma
...Respondent
Coram:
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Romesh Verma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. Bonit, Advocate, vice Mr. A.K. Gupta, Advocate.
For the respondent : Mr. Baldev Singh Negi, Additional Advocate General.
Romesh Verma, Judge (oral):
The present petition has been filed alleging the defiance of the judgment as passed by this Court in CWP No.1422 of 2026, dated 24.02.2026.
2. This matter was taken up during the pre-lunch session and the learned Additional Advocate General was directed to have instructions in the matter.
3. The learned Additional Advocate General has placed on record communication dated 20.07.2026, whereby the case of the present petitioner has been accepted and it has been observed that Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
-2-
the claim of the petitioner to grant pension by counting daily wage service towards regular service is allowed with effect from 01.01.2018, strictly as per decision in Sundar Singh’s case and as per para-VI of the Government instructions dated 18.11.2025, subject to further legal recourse as advised by the Government.
4. Faced with this situation, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petition can be disposed of.
5. In view of the observations, the present petition is disposed of in view of the judgment in question having been complied with.
6. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
(Romesh Verma)
Judge 20th July, 2026.
(vt)