IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA COPC No.670 of 2024 Date of Decision: 28.04.2025 _______________________________________________________ Bhawani Singh …….Petitioner Versus Dr. Pankaj Lalit & others … Respondents Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Maan Singh, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C.Verma, Additional Advocate Generals and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): Pursuant to order dated 13.03.2025, learned Additional Advocate General has placed on record communication dated 26.04.2025, issued under the signatures of Deputy Commissioner, Kullu-cum-Chairperson, Kullu Paramparik Sanskriti Samverdhan Society (Kullu Kala Manch), District Kullu, Himachal Pradesh, perusal whereof reveals that in compliance to the mandate contained in the judgment alleged to have been violated, petitioner has been permitted to work on daily wage basis as he was working previously. 2. Dr. Pankaj Lalit, Director, Art and Culture, Himachal Pradesh has also come present. He states that though in past 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 petitioner was directed to join as outsource employee, but now having taken note of the mandate contained in the judgment alleged to have been violated as well as observations made in order dated 13.03.2025 passed by this Court in the instant proceedings, petitioner has been permitted to work on daily wage basis, as he was working previously. Since this Court having taken note of the fact that petitioner herein was earlier working as Chokidar in the erstwhile Dev Sadan Samiti, Kullu, which subsequently came to be taken over by Kullu Paramparik Sanskriti Samverdhan Society, Kullu, District Kullu specifically ordered that petitioner cannot be compelled to work on outsource basis, there cannot be any justification to compel the petitioner to give him joining as an outsource employee. There is nothing to suggest that aforesaid judgment passed by this Court has been laid challenge in the superior court of law. Till the time, judgment alleged to have been violated is not set-aside or modified by superior Court of law, respondents are under obligation to comply with the mandate contained in the same in its letter and spirit. 3. Since, it is quite apparent from the aforesaid communication as well as statement made by Director, Art and Culture, Himachal Pradesh, who is present in Court, that petitioner has been permitted to work on daily wage basis, nothing remains to be adjudicated in the instant proceedings and accordingly same are 3 closed. Notices issued to the respondents are hereby discharged. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to get the present petition revived in case, he is not permitted to work in the capacity of daily wage employee. Liberty is also reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings in appropriate Court of law qua the surviving grievance, if any. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge April 28,2025 (shankar)