Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Himachal Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 30934 (HP)

YOGESH ATTRI v. RAKESH KANWAR AND ORS

COPC/986/2025 · 2025-10-10

Sandeep Sharma

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA COPC No. 986 of 2025 Date of Decision: 10.10.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Yogesh Attri ……...Petitioner Versus Rakesh Kanwar and Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. V.B. Verma and Mr. Mukul Sharma, Advocates. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, Mr. Rajan Kahol and Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) While placing on record communication dated 8.9.2025, issued under the signature of Director of School Education, Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, states that mandate contained in the judgment alleged to have been violated, stands complied with. He states that in compliance of directions contained in the judgment alleged to have been violated, instructions stand issued to the quarter concerned vide office letter dated 17.7.2025 that all judgments passed on the analogy of CWP No. 414 of 2014, titled as Kuldeep Chand v. State of Himachal 2 Pradesh and Ors. (connected LPA No. 54 of 2013 titled as State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. Om Prakash) alongwith other cases, be implemented. Mr. Kahol, further states that direction has also been issued to Deputy Directors of the area concerned for release of monetary benefits in favour of the petitioners. 2. Having perused aforesaid communication, there appears to be merit in the contention of learned Additional Advocate General and as such, nothing remains to be adjudicated in the instant proceedings. Accordingly, present petition is disposed of. Notices discharged. Needless to say, consequential benefits flowing from the aforesaid compliance, if not already released, shall be released expeditiously, preferably, within four months. Liberty is also reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings before appropriate court of law qua surviving grievance, if any. October 10, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (manjit) Judge