2025:HHC:32256 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No. 292 of 2022 Decided on: 17.09.2025 School Management Committee, GPS Gajeri … Petitioner Versus Block Elementary Education Officer and others .… Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 ___________________________________________________________________ For the petitioner : Mr. Ravinder Singh Chandel, Advocate. For the respondent : Mr. Pushpender Jaswal, Additional Advocate General for respondents No. 1 and 2-State. : Mr. Prem P. Chauhan, Advocate for respondent No. 3. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:- “It is therefore most humbly and respectfully prayed that this application may very kindly be allowed and during the pendency of the accompanying petition proceedings in Reference Petition No.84 of 2018, titled as Santosh Devi V/s Block Elementary Education & others pending before the Ld. Presiding Judge, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court at Shimla, H.P and impugned order dated 04/05/2022 Annexure P-1 may very kindly be stayed in the interest of 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:32256 law and Justice.” 2. Vide impugned order, the right of the petitioner to lead evidence has been closed on the ground that more than 17 opportunities were granted to the present petitioner but it has failed to adduce any evidence. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has made available for the perusal of the Court the zimni orders that have been passed by learned Court below and a perusal thereof demonstrates that indeed sufficient opportunities have been given to the petitioner to lead evidence yet the needful was not done. 4. Though learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has filed the list of witnesses in terms of Annexure P-1, but then, the same was filed on 15.10.2019 and the zimni orders demonstrate that thereafter the present petitioner was proceeded against ex parte before the learned Labour Court, which order was set aside on 13.01.2022. Thereafter also, opportunities were given to the petitioner to lead evidence but nothing was done and it is in this background that on 04.05.2022, the order under challenge was passed. 5. In light of the fact that the learned Court was not supposed to wait for eternity for the parties to lead evidence and as more than sufficient opportunities indeed were granted to the petitioner to lead evidence, this Court does not find any infirmity in 3 2025:HHC:32256 the impugned order. The present petition is accordingly dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge September 17, 2025 (narender)