IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA COPC No. 782 of 2025 Date of Decision: 29.07.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Guddi Devi ……...Petitioner Versus Er. Narinder Pal Singh …....Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Subhash Mohan Snehi, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar & Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) While placing on record communication dated 28.07.2025, issued under the signatures of Executive Engineer, Mandi Division No. 1, HPPWD at Padhar, 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 perused aforesaid communication as well as office order dated 13.05.2025, copy whereof has been annexed with the aforesaid communication, which are taken on record, this Court finds that in terms of judgment, alleged to have been violated, respondents, after having considered the case of the petitioner, have passed detailed 2 speaking order dated 13.05.2025, whereby claim of the petitioner has been considered and allowed. Executive Engineer, Mandi Division No. 1, HPPWD at Padhar, has been directed to process the pension case of the petitioner and now, pension case of the petitioner stands submitted to the office of Accountant General, Himachal Pradesh, vide letter No. 2278-79 dated 228.05.2025. 3. Having perused aforesaid communication as well as office order dated 13.05.2025, this Court has no hesitation to conclude that no action of the respondents can be said to be contumacious and as such, nothing remains to be adjudicated in the instant proceedings and accordingly, the same are disposed of with. However, direction is issued to the office of Accountant General, Himachal Pradesh to ensure that PPO in favour of the petitioner is issued, if not already issued, expeditiously, preferably within four weeks. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to get the present petition revived so that appropriate action in accordance with law is taken against the erring officials. Notice issued to the respondents are discharged. July 29, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (Sunil) Judge