COPC/908/2026 on 4 August 2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA COPC No. 908 of 2026 Date of decision: 04.08.2026 Biri Chand

...Petitioner. Versus Sh. R.D.Nazeem & another ...Respondents.

Coram:

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Romesh Verma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. Vijender Katoch, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Baldev Singh Negi, Additional Advocate General, for respondent No.1. Mr. Virender Singh Kanwar, Advocate, for respondent No.2. Romesh Verma, Judge (Oral): The present petition has been filed alleging non-compliance of the judgment passed by this Court on 23.12.2025 in CWPOA No. 2550 of 2019, titled as Arif Hussain & others vs. State of H.P. & others, whereby following directions were given, which read as follows:- “16. In view of above discussion and for the reasons recorded above, the Lead Case and all other connected cases are disposed of, in the following terms:-

(i) . Prayer for redrawing Original Merit List stands granted/accepted with issuance of Revised Merit List, as in Annexure D, (prepared-issued in May 2025);

(ii) . Based on Revised Merit List, Respondent Corporation shall consider the petitioners in Lead Case and other connected cases, for appointment, in case, they fall in merit, against 91 posts to be vacated in terms of revised merit;

(iii) . Upon consideration and in case of acceptance of claim, as in direction no (ii) above; Respondent Corporation shall grant all consequential benefits, to the petitioners as in direction no (v) infra;

Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

(iv) . Based on Revised Merit List, Respondent Corporation shall consider the petitioners, Deepak Kumar [Petitioner in CWP No 6204 of 2020] and Dinesh Kumar [Petitioner No 42 in CWPOA No 2550 of 2019] for appointment, inaccordance with law;

(v) . Pursuant to appointment, aforesaid Deepak Kumar and Dinesh Kumar shall be granted all consequential benefits like seniority and notional pay fixation from the date other incumbents from same selection were appointed as TMPA’s in June 2018 but actual monetary benefits shall accrue from the date of filing of respective writ petition(s);

(vi) . Liberty is granted to petitioners to avail appropriate remedy against Revised Merit List, as in Annexure D, [prepared-issued in May 2025), if so desired ;

(vii) . Respondent Corporation shall complete the entire action, as in directions (i) to (iv) above, within four weeks from the date of receipt of certified/downloaded copy of this judgement;

(viii) . Directions passed in Lead Case shall mutatis mutandis apply to other connected cases ;

(ix) . Needless to say, that it shall be open for Respondent Corporation to consider 91 incumbents-TMPA, who are excluded in Revised Merit List, but have been working for about 6 years (since June 2018) to be retained against unfilled 65 posts and/or other vacant posts or by creating supernumerary posts, if so desired; but without impeding the right of petitioners herein;

(x) Parties to bear respective costs.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that the judgment which has been passed by this Court has not been complied with and the benefits which are required to be granted on the basis of said judgment have been denied. This Court had issued notice to the respondents on 27th July 2026 whereby the counsel for the respondents was directed to have the instructions in the matter.

3. Thereafter, the case was listed on 3rd August 2026, when the learned Additional Advocate General was directed to have the instructions in the matter.

4. Today, learned Additional Advocate General has placed on record the instructions as imparted by Divisional Manager (Administration),

HRTC, Head Office, Shimla, H.P. vide letter dated 3rd August 2026 which reads as under: “As regards the individual claim of the petitioner, Sh. Biri Chand, it is respectfully submitted that his name does not figure in the revised merit list issued in May, 2025. Consequently, he does not fall within the zone of consideration for appointment against the posts contemplated under direction No. (ii) of the judgment. His claim for appointment as TMPA/Conductor is, therefore, not covered by the directions issued by the Hon'ble Court.”

5. The grievance of the present petitioner does not hold good in view of the specific instructions imparted by the respondents, wherein it has been stated that the petitioner does not fall within the zone of consideration for appointment against the post contemplated under direction No. (ii) of the judgment.

6. Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, no violation as alleged has been committed by the respondents.

7. Prima facie, it can be seen from the record that the respondents have fully complied with the judgment, whereby after considering the case of the petitioner, the respondents have come to the conclusion that he does not fall within the zone of consideration.

8. Therefore, no further order is required to be passed in the present petition. Consequently, the petition is closed as having been fully complied with. The petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Notice is discharged. (Romesh Verma)

Judge August 4, 2026 (Nisha)