IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA COPC No.848 of 2025 Decided on: 16th April, 2026 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mohinder Kumar Chopra …..Petitioner Versus Sh. Vikram Misri and another .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Jagdish Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Virbahadur Verma, Central Govt. Counsel, for respondent No.1. Ms. Sunita Sharma, Senior Advocate with Mr. Aditya Singh Thakur, Advocate, for respondent No.2. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Petitioner, who is presently serving as Chief Electrical Inspector on secondment basis in the office of Electrical Inspectorate, Block No.29B, Kasumpti, Shimla, is with the grievance that the respondents have violated the directions issued in Mohinder Kumar Chopra Versus Union of India and others2. 1 Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes 2 CWP No.4073 of 2024, decided on 29.07.2024 2 2. Mohinder Kumar Chopra2 was filed for the grant of following substantive reliefs:- “i) To issue appropriate writ or direction to the respondents and impugned communication as contained in letter dated 7.12.2022 as contained in Annexure P-18 and letter dated 13.6.2023 as contained in Annexure P-23 may very kindly be quashed and set aside. ii) To issue appropriate writ or direction to the respondents to release/pay salary strictly in consonance with terms for officers/official of Center and State Governments of India on deputation with Royal Government of Bhutan" as contained in the Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi letter No. E.IV/551/9/2011 dated 21.11.2001 issued by respondent No.1 as contained in Annexure P- 3 and further the respondents be directed to pay the balance of arrear on account of revision of pay scale alongwith interest @ 12% per annum to the petitioner.” It appears that in Mohinder Kumar Chopra2, following order was passed on 05.07.2024 taking note of an objection raised for the respondents with regard to maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that respondent No.3 therein was an entity of the Royal Government of Bhutan:- “Mr. Vikrant, learned Counsel has put in appearance on behalf of respondent No.3. He has taken a preliminary objection with regard to the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that as respondent No.3 happens to be an entity of Royal Government of Bhutan, therefore, the petition is not maintainable. List on 10.07.2024, to enable learned Counsel for the petitioner to address on this issue.” The writ petition was disposed of on 29.07.2024 as under:- 3 “2. When this case was listed on 05.07.2024, the Court passed the following order:- “Mr. Vikrant, learned Counsel has put in appearance on behalf of respondent No.3. He has taken a preliminary objection with regard to the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that as respondent No.3 happens to be an entity of Royal Government of Bhutan, therefore, the petition is not maintainable. List on 10.07.2024, to enable learned Counsel for the the petitioner to address on this issue.” 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that as it is on the basis of an understanding between the Union of India with the Royal Government of Bhutan (See Annexure P-3) that the Projects in issue are being executed, the interest of justice would be served, in case, this petition is disposed of by directing respondents No.1 and 2 to take up the matter with Authority(s) concerned, with regard to the issues raised in the writ petition. 4. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties, this writ petition is disposed of with the direction that let the issues that have been raised by the petitioner in this writ petition, be taken up by respondents No. 1 and 2 with concerned Authorities, to ensure that the grievance of the petitioner is espoused. Let needful be done within a period of three months from today. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any also stand disposed of accordingly.” 3. Respondent No.1 has filed the compliance affidavit, inter alia, stating therein that grievance of the petitioner had been duly espoused and forwarded to the concerned authorities for decision; Delay, if any, in final redressal is attributable to the fact that Punatsangchhu Hydroelectric Project Authority-II (PHPA-II), Bhutan is an inter-governmental entity registered in Bhutan, functioning 4 under the administrative and financial jurisdiction of the Royal Government of Bhutan and as such is outside the direct administrative control of the Union of India; That notwithstanding this, respondent No.1 has acted with due diligence and ensured that grievance of the petitioner is duly processed before PHPA-II; It is PHPA-II, which alone is empowered to adjudicate upon petitioner’s arrear claim as the petitioner was engaged by PHPA-II, an entity registered in Bhutan; Terms & conditions of his engagement are also governed by PHPA-II Rules. The compliance affidavit further states that the matter regarding release of arrears to the petitioner on account of Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme was taken up by the petitioner with PHPA-II. The financial upgradation for deputed officials including the present petitioner was objected to by the Royal Audit Authority of Bhutan and therefore, was not allowed. This decision was conveyed by PHPA-II to the petitioner. In view of the compliance affidavit filed by respondent No.1, no contempt is made out. Accordingly, the present contempt proceedings are closed. Notices issued to the respondents are discharged. Liberty is, however, reserved to the petitioner to seek appropriate remedy as 5 may be available to him in law for the redressal of his surviving grievances, if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua April 16, 2026 Judge Mukesh