Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Himachal Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 13695 (HP)

S.K. JAIN THROUGH LRs PRAVEEN JAIN THROUGH HIS LRS PRAVEEN JAIN AND ANOTHER v. STATE OF HP AND OTHERS

EX.PT/252/2024 · 2025-03-28

Sandeep Sharma

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Execution Petition No. 252 of 2024 Date of Decision: 28.3.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ S.K. Jain (deceased) through his LRs. ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Neeraj Sharma, Senior Advocate with Mr. Ankit Dhiman, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) While placing on record communication dated 27.3.2025, issued under the signature of Additional Secretary (Education) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, Mr. B.C. Verma, learned Additional Advocate General states that competent authority, after examining the record, has failed to implement the order passed by this Court by convening review Departmental Promotion Committee, however, before review DPC is held, it is required to create a supernumerary post as on the date of DPC, which was held on 15.6.1999. It has been categorically 2 admitted in the aforesaid communication that petitioner shall be promoted to the post of Principal (College Cadre) within two months. 2. Consequently, in view of the aforesaid clear-cut undertaking given to this Court, nothing remains to be adjudicated in the instant proceedings. Accordingly, same are closed with direction to the respondents to ensure that petitioner is promoted to the post of Principal in terms of mandate contained in the judgment alleged to have been violated within two months and thereafter, consequential benefits, if any, arising out of promotion shall be released expeditiously, preferably, within six weeks. Liberty is also reserved to the petitioner to get the present petition revived in case needful is not done within the stipulated time so that appropriate steps are taken towards execution and implementation of the judgment sought to be executed. March 28, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (manjit) Judge