IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA COPC No. 1099 of 2026 Date of decision: 12.08.2026 Manish Kumar ...Petitioner. Versus Sh. Rakesh Kanwar & another ...Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Romesh Verma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Ms. Sheetal Kaul, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Manish Thakur, Deputy Advocate General. Romesh Verma, Judge (Oral): The present petition has been filed alleging non-compliance of the judgment passed by this Court in CWP No. 19445 of 2025, titled Manish Kumar vs. State of H.P., decided on 10.12.2025. 2. Learned Deputy Advocate General has placed on record the Office Order dated 11.08.2026, whereby after accepting the case of the present petitioner following order was passed:- “In compliance to the Hon'ble High Court order and as per Govt. letter dated 30.12.2025, the petitioner ( who are initially appointed as TGT on contract basis) in above said COPC/ CWP are allowed higher pay scale of 41600/- after the two years of regular services subject to 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 instruction from time to time with the condition that in case the outcome LPA in favour of the Department, the petitioner are bound to refund the amount of arrear so paid to them. 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 them accordingly. If the said benefit has already been released in favour of any of the petitioners in above said Ex. Petition/CWP, then it may be ensured that double benefit may not be released in favour of any of them. The entry be also made in the service book of individual concerned. May inform the parties accordingly.” 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? -2- 3. This fact has been duly acknowledged by the learned counsel for the petitioner, who submits that in view of the compliance made by the respondents, the present petition may be closed. 4. Accordingly, petition stands disposed of, in the aforesaid terms. Notice is discharged. (Romesh Verma) Judge August 12, 2026 (Nisha)