IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA COPC No.318 of 2025 Date of Decision: 14.07.2025 _______________________________________________________ Sanjan Awasthi …….Petitioner Versus Rakesh Kanwar and another … Respondents ______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioners: Ms. Sakshi Thakur, proxy counsel vice Mr. Sparsh Bhushan, Advocate. For the Respondents Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol and Mr. B.C.Verma, Additional Advocate Generals and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. _______________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): While placing on record copy of Office order dated 11.07.2025, issued under the signatures of Director School Education, Himachal Pradesh, Mr. B.C.Verma, learned Additional Advocate General, states that mandate contained in the judgment alleged to have been violated stands duly complied with. Aforesaid communication is taken on record. Perusal of aforesaid communication reveals that in terms of the mandate contained in the judgment alleged to have been violated, services of the petitioner have been taken over as Lecturer, Hindi ( School New) on trainee basis w.e.f.05.02.2016 i.e. the date on which, the services of other 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 incumbents were taken over, with all consequential benefits, subject to final outcome of the Letters Patent Appeal filed before this Court. 2. Having perused aforesaid communication vis-à-vis directions contained in the judgment alleged to have been violated, this Court is convinced and satisfied 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 present proceedings and accordingly same are closed. Notices issued to the respondents are hereby discharged. However, respondents are directed to release the consequential benefits in terms of aforesaid compliance expeditiously, preferably within a period of four weeks, failing which, petitioner is at liberty to get the present proceedings revived, so that appropriate action is taken against the erring officials. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge July 14,2025 (shankar)