2026:HHC:31492 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA COPC No. 943/2026 Decided on: 29.07.2026 Suresh Kumar …..Petitioner Versus Rakesh Kanwar & anr. ….Respondents ______________________________________________________________ Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Romesh Verma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Sourav Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Baldev Singh Negi, Addl. A.G. Romesh Verma, Judge (oral) Notice. Mr. Baldev Singh Negi, learned Additional Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice. 2 The present petition has been filed alleging violation of order, dated 28.4.2026, as passed by this Court in CWP No. 5320/2026. 3 The matter was taken up in pre-lunch session and learned Additional Advocate General sought time to have current instructions in the matter. 1Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 4 In post-lunch session, learned Additional Advocate General, has placed on record, copy of office order, dated 28.6.2026, relevant portion thereof reads as under: “Now therefore, in compliance with Hon'ble High Court order dated 28.04.2026 in CWP No. 5320 of 2026 titled as Suresh Kumar Vs State of HP & Ors and as per direction issued by the Director of School Education Himachal Pradesh Shimla vide letter No.EDN-H-(Ele)-IV- (6)-4-5/2024-Court Matter BLP/SLN dated 20.07.2026, the petitioner is allowed higher pay stage of Rs. 37600/- after the two years of regular service subject to the final outcome of LPA filed in CWP No. 4830/2023 titled as Inder Singh and any other Legal remedies. The DDO concerned is hereby directed to fix the pay of the petitioner and release the arrear as per Finance Department instructions Issued from time to time with the condition that in case the outcome of LPA is in favor of the Department, the petitioner is bound to refund the amount of arrear so paid to him. However, an undertaking to this effect may be obtained from the petitioner that the overpayment if any, found, in later, stage shall be recovered from him accordingly. The entry pertaining to this also made in the service book of Individual concerned. May inform the parties accordingly.” 5 Faced with the situation, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present petition can be closed at this stage, with liberty to file an appropriate application for 3 revival of the instant petition in case grievance of the petitioner still remains to be unaddressed. 6 In view of above, nothing remains to be adjudicated in the instant petition and the same is closed, however with liberty, as aforesaid. Notices are discharged. (Romesh Verma) 29.07.2026 Judge (pankaj)