Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Himachal Pradesh · body

2026 DAILYLAW 22739 (HP)

BHEEM RAJ v. DEVESH KUMAR AND OTHERS

COPC/980/2026 · 2026-09-11

Ranjan Sharma

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA COPC No.980 of 2026 Decided on: 11.09.2026. __________________________________________________________ Bheem Raj ....Petitioner Versus Devesh Kumar and Ors ....Respondents Coram : Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge 1Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioner: Mr. Tarun Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Gautam Sood, Deputy, Advocate General. Ranjan Sharma, Judge : Petitioner Bhim Raj has invoked the contempt jurisdiction of this Court, against non-compliance of the judgment dated 04.11.2025, passed in CWP No. 17161 of 2025, Bhim Raj vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, whereby this Court, without examining the matter on merits, directed the Competent Authority to decide the representation of the petitioner in accordance with law, as well as taking into consideration the judgment in Inder Singh Thakur vs. State of Himachal Pradesh [CWP No. 4830 of 2023, decided on 07.04.2025], within six weeks. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. Notice in instant proceedings was issued on 31.07.2026, directing to the respondents to file response/compliance affidavit. 3. Upon listing of the case today, Learned State Counsel has furnished a copy of the Instructions dated 17.08.2026 [Taken on record] as imparted to him by Director of School Education, enclosing a copy of the office order dated 17.08.2026 granting the higher stage of pay after two years of regular service to petitioner as Lecturer, subject to the outcome of LPA and availing of other legal remedies by the respondents. 4. Faced with the above situation, as in above Instructions, Learned Counsel for petitioner, states that petitioner is satisfied with the implementation, as on day. [Statement Taken on record]. 5. Consequently, the matter is closed and the notice of contempt is discharged. 6. Needless to say, that benefits, extended to the petitioner, shall be subject to the outcome of LPA, in case of Inder Singh (supra) or legal remedies, hereafter. In aforesaid terms, the Instant Petition and all pending, miscellaneous applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of. (Ranjan Sharma) Judge September 11, 2026 [Anita]