Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
COPC No.328 of 2025 Date of Decision: 03.06.2025 _______________________________________________________ Sharda Devi
…….Petitioner
Versus
Mr. Jagdish Sharma
… Respondent ______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Amit Himalvi, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C.Verma, Additional Advocate Generals, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. _______________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral):
While placing on record communication dated 08.05.2025, issued under the signatures of District Treasury Officer, learned Additional Advocate General states that previous pension arrear w.e.f. 01.02.2022 to 29.02.2024, amounting to Rs. 12, 66,348/- has been paid on 30.04.2024 to the petitioner in compliance of order passed by this Court as well as speaking order issued by Principal Secretary (Finance) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh on
18.01.2024. It has been further stated in the aforesaid communication that previous pension arrear of revision of pension amounting to Rs. 84,708/- has also been paid to the petitioner on 30.06.2024 similar to all other pensioners of State as per office memorandum dated
13.03.2024. Learned Additional Advocate General states that as per
1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2
aforesaid communication, which is taken on record, no revised commutation is pending in the name of Smt. Sharda Devi.
2.
Having perused aforesaid communication, this Court is persuaded to agree with learned Additional Advocate General that mandate contained in the judgment alleged to have been violated stands duly complied with and as such, nothing remains to be adjudicated in the instant proceedings and accordingly same are closed. Notices issued to the respondents are hereby discharged. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings in appropriate Court of law qua the surviving grievance, if any.
(Sandeep Sharma), Judge
June 03,2025 (shankar)