2026:HHC:42018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA COPC No. 488 of 2026 Date of decision: 29.09.2026. Lalit Kumar ...Petitioner. Versus Apoorv Devgan ...Respondent. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. Hitesh Bali, Advocate. For the respondent : Mr. Gautam Sood, Deputy Advocate General. Ranjan Sharma, Judge: Petitioner has come up in instant petition, alleging non-compliance of order dated 20.11.2025 [Annexure C-1], passed by this Court in CWP No.7217 of 2024, titled as Lalit Kumar Versus State of H. P. and another [Annexure C-1], whereby, the Respondents/ Competent Authority were directed to consider and decide the case in accordance with law as well as taking into consideration the judgment in the case of Nitin Thakur Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others [CWP No. 4971 of 2024]. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes -2- 2. Pursuant to the issuance of notice, in instant proceedings, the State Authorities have filed a Compliance Affidavit dated 12.06.2026, stating that case of the petitioner has been considered in the light of the judgment in the case of Nitin Thakur [supra] and the claim was rejected as per Office Order dated 20.04.2026 [Annexure C-III], on the ground, that judgment in the case of Nitin Thakur was distinguishable, and not was applicable in facts instant case. 3. Upon listing of the case today, Learned State Counsel places on record a copy of orders dated 18.09.2026 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.33197-33209/2026, titled as State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. versus Nitin Thakur [Taken on Record], whereby, the judgment passed in LPA and orders passed in Execution in the case of Nitin Thakur [supra], have been stayed, by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 4. Considering the fact that the State-Authorities have considered the case of the petitioner and have passed a speaking order, rejecting the claim of the petitioner on 24.04.2026 [Annexure C-3], therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the order/judgment dated 20.11.2025 -3- [Annexure C-1] stands complied with. Moreover, the larger issue as to whether the persons with disability were to be appointed on regular basis or could be appointed on contract basis stands stayed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP, as referred to above. 5. Faced with above, Learned Counsel for the petitioner prays that he may be given liberty to assail the rejection order dated 24.04.2026 [Annexure C-3], at appropriate stage hereinafter, if required, after outcome of SLP. 6. Prayer, being innocuous, is not opposed, by the Learned State Counsel also. 7. Considering the matter in above perspective, since there is neither any willful nor intentional non-compliance/ disobedience and as prayed by, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, instant petition is closed, with liberty to the petitioner to assail the rejection order dated 24.04.2026 [Annexure C-3], hereinafter, in accordance with law. (Ranjan Sharma) Judge 29th September, 2026. (kck)