Himachal Pradesh High Court
COPC/1197/2026 on 15 October 2026
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.
1 ( 2026:HHC:45707 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
COPC No. 1197 of 2026
Decided on: 15.10.2026 ________________________________________________ Aruna Kumari ....Petitioner Versus
Dr. Amarjeet K. Sharma …Respondent _
Coram
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sushil Kukreja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. Anil Kumar, Advocate. For the respondent : Mr. B.N. Sharma, Additional Advocate General. Sushil Kukreja, Judge (oral) Compliance affidavit has been filed and alongwith the same, copy of Office Order dated 03.09.2026 has also been filed as Annexure A-1, wherein, it has been stated as under:- “Whereas, on the basis of the information available in this office, the petitioner was engaged on a local PTA basis by the PTA Committee and the then officiating Principal of G.D.C. Sarkaghat, Distt. Mandi, H.P. she worked as Sweeper from 01.10.2013 till date on need basis and regular breaks were given especially during summer and winter vacations. This engagement was made at the college level by the then officiating Principals without 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? High Court of H.P. ::: Downloaded on - 28/10/2026 17:02:49 :::CIS
2 ( 2026:HHC:45707 obtaining prior approval or sanction from the competent authority. The recruitment was thus made at the local level, dehors the rules and prescribed procedure. Whereas, the petitioner was paid from the PTA local fund, which is compromised of funds collected from the students of the college concerned. Now therefore, there is no provision for regularization of PTA non-teaching staff in policy.”
2. Therefore, in this view of the matter, no further orders are required to be passed in the present contempt petition and the same is closed.
3. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to assail Office Order dated 03.09.2026, in accordance with law, if she is still aggrieved. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of.
( Sushil Kukreja )
15th October, 2026 Judge (raman) High Court of H.P. ::: Downloaded on - 28/10/2026 17:02:49 :::CIS