BUDHI DEVI Wo Sh. Masat Ram v. ABHISHEK JAIN AND ORS
COPC/958/2025 · 2025-11-24
Sandeep Sharma
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 34129 (HP) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 34129 (HP) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
COPC No.958 of 2025 Date of Decision: 24.11.2025 _______________________________________________________ Budhi Devi
…….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 communication dated 19.11.2025, issued under the signatures of Executive Engineer, B&R Division, HPPWD, Jogindernagar, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh, enclosing therewith 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 subject to final outcome of LPA/Curative petition.
2.
Having perused the aforesaid documents, which are taken on record, this Court finds that respondents, after having considered the case of the petitioner for pension, has already directed the Executive Engineer, B&R Division, HPPWD, Jogindernagar to
1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2
take necessary steps for extending the benefit to the petitioner expeditiously.
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 four 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. Notice issued to the respondents are hereby discharged accordingly.
(Sandeep Sharma), Judge
November 24,2025 (shankar)