IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL P RADESH, SHIMLA COPC No.731 of 2025 Date of Decision: 22.09.2025 ___________________________________________________________ Sahiboo Devi ……...Petitioner Versus Dr. Abhishek Jain and Others …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? ____________________________________________________________ For the Petitioner: Mr. Ajay Sharma, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Atharv Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for State. ____________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) While placing on record copy of office order dated 20.09.2025, issued under the signatures of Engineer-in-Chief, HPPWD, Shimla, Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General, states that mandate contained in the judgment, alleged to have been violated, stands duly complied with. 2. Having carefully perused aforesaid order, which is taken on record, this Court finds merit in the contention of learned Additional Advocate General. Perusal of aforesaid office order reveals that respondents, after having considered the case of the petitioner in terms of mandate contained in the judgment, alleged to have been violated, have decided to implement the judgment, subject to outcome of SLP and necessary directions already stands 2 issued to Executive Engineer, Shahpur Division, HPPWD, Shahpur to take necessary steps for extending the benefit to the petitioner at the earliest. 3. Consequently, in view of the above, nothing remains to be adjudicated in the instant proceedings and accordingly the same is disposed of. Notices are discharged. Executive Engineer, Shahpur Division, HPPWD, Shahpur is directed to ensure that necessary steps for extending the benefit to the petitioner in light of judgment, alleged to have been violated, and in terms of order dated 20.09.2025, as detailed hereinabove, are taken expeditiously, preferably, within a period of two weeks, failing which petitioner would be at liberty to get the present petition revived, so that appropriate action in accordance with law is taken against the erring official. September 22, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (Rajeev Raturi) Judge