Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Himachal Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 33935 (HP)

RAM SINGH S/o Sh. Bajaru v. ABHISHEK JAIN AND ORS

COPC/959/2025 · 2025-11-24

Sandeep Sharma

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA COPC No.959 of 2025 Date of Decision: 24.11.2025 _______________________________________________________ Ram Singh …….Petitioner Versus Abhishek Jain & others … Respondent ______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Vikas Rathore, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocate General with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. _______________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): While placing on record copy of office order dated 04.11.2025, issued under the signatures of Engineer-in-Chief, HPPWD, Shimla, Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General, states that the mandate contained in the judgment alleged to have been violated stands duly complied with. 2. Having perused the aforesaid document, which is taken on record, this Court finds that the petitioner’s claim for pension in terms of the mandate contained in the judgment alleged to have been violated stands considered by the respondents, subject to final outcome of Curative petition filed by the State in Balo Devi’s case and subject to fulfillment of all conditions of office memorandum dated 04.05.2023. Accordingly, the Executive Engineer, B&R Division, 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 HPPWD, Jogindernagar has been already directed to take necessary steps for extending the benefit to the petitioner at the earliest. 3. In view of the above, nothing remains to be adjudicated in the instant proceedings and accordingly, same are closed. The respondents are directed to ensure that consequential benefits, if any, flowing from aforesaid compliance, if not already released, shall be released expeditiously, preferably within a period of six weeks, failing, petitioner would be at liberty to get the present proceedings revived, so that appropriate action, in accordance with law, is taken against the erring officials. Notices issued to the respondents are hereby discharged accordingly. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge November 24,2025 (shankar)