Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Himachal Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 38932 (HP)

DHARMINDER KUMAR v. NIPUN JINGAL AND OTHERS

COPC/236/2025 · 2025-11-14

Sandeep Sharma

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA COPC No.236 of 2025 Date of Decision: 14.11.2025 _______________________________________________________ Dharminder Kumar …….Petitioner Versus Nipun Jindal and others … Respondent Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Ashok Kumar, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Virender Singh Kanwar, Advocate. _______________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): Having carefully perused the compliance affidavit filed by the respondents in terms of order dated 25.07.2025, wherein a copy of office order dated 20.08.2025, issued under the signatures of Managing Director, Himachal Road Transport Corporation, Shimla, has been annexed, this Court finds force in the submission of learned counsel for the respondents that the mandate contained in the judgment alleged to have been violated stands duly complied with. 2. Having perused office order dated 20.08.2025 vis-à-vis judgment alleged to have been violated, this Court finds that office order dated 24.08.2023, whereby the promotion order of Shri Dharminder Kumar as Sub Inspector was withdrawn, stands revoked subject to outcome of LPA No.452 of 2025. Though, this Court is of 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 the view that once Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, while passing the judgment alleged to have been violated, had already quashed and set-aside the order dated 24.08.2023, there was no requirement, if any, for the respondents to pass specific order with regard to withdrawal of order dated 24.08.2023. Be that as it may, since it is not in dispute that order dated 24.08.2023, whereby the promotion order of petitioner from the post of Sub Inspector stood withdrawn, has been revoked, no action of the respondents can be said to be contemptuous. 3. Consequently, in view of the above, nothing remains to be adjudicated in the instant petition and accordingly, same is disposed of. Notices issued to the respondents are discharged. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge November 14,2025 (shankar)