Sumit Sharma Vs Kadam Sandeep Vasant and Another — Himachal Pradesh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Sumit Sharma Vs Kadam Sandeep Vasant and Another — Himachal Pradesh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Proceedings closed with a direction to the authority to ensure the needful in terms of the communication is done expeditiously, preferably within two weeks; liberty reserved to the petitioner to pursue appropriate proceedings if still aggrieved; notices discharged; petition disposed of along with pending applications, if any.

Issue for consideration

Whether the judgment alleged to have been violated has been implemented, such that anything remains to be adjudicated in these proceedings.

Court's answer

An in-principle decision has been taken to implement the judgment and the process for revising the seniority list has already been initiated.

Ratio / Principle

In view of the above, nothing remains to be adjudicated in the instant proceedings and they are accordingly closed.

Key takeaways

The authority is directed to ensure that the needful in terms of the aforesaid communication is done expeditiously, preferably within a period of two weeks.ratio¶11
Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings in the appropriate Court of law if he still remains aggrieved; notices issued to the respondents stand discharged.ratio¶11

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

COPC No.732 of 2024 (contempt/implementation petition) — Alleged non-implementation of the mandate of an earlier judgment concerning grant of contractual seniority. The learned Additional Advocate General placed on record a communication dated 18.12.2024 issued under the signatures of the Director, Technical Education, Vocational & Industrial Training, Himachal Pradesh, Sundernagar, District Mandi, stating that vide communication dated 17.12.2024 the Government had processed the file for revising the seniority list by granting contractual seniority, with final orders to be passed shortly and promotion from due date, if any, along with arrears, to follow. The Court found that an in-principle decision had been taken to implement the judgment and the process of revising the seniority list had commenced; consequently nothing remained to be adjudicated. The proceedings were closed with a direction to the authority to ensure the needful was done expeditiously, preferably within two weeks; liberty was reserved to the petitioner to institute appropriate proceedings if still aggrieved; notices issued to the respondents stood discharged; the petition was disposed of along with pending applications, if any.

2025:HHC:327

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL P RADESH, SHIMLA

COPC No.732 of 2024 Date of Decision: 02.01.2025

__________________________________________________________________________ Sumit Sharma ……...Petitioner Versus Kadam Sandeep Vasant and Another …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Advocate.

For the Respondents: Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocate General.

Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)

While placing on record communication dated 18.12.2024, issued under the signatures of Director, Technical Education, Vocational & Industrial Training, Himachal Pradesh, Sundernagar, District Mandi, Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General states that in terms of mandate contained in the judgment, alleged to have been violated, Government vide communication dated 17.12.2024 has processed the file for revising the seniority list by granting the contractual seniority. He states that final orders shall be passed shortly and thereafter promotion from due date, if any, along with arrear, shall also be granted.

Having perused aforesaid communication, which is taken on record, this Court finds that in-principle decision has already been taken to implement the judgment and in that regard, process has already been initiated for revising the seniority list.

2025:HHC:327

2

Consequently, in view of the above, nothing remains to be adjudicated in the instant proceedings and accordingly the same are closed, with the direction to afore authority to ensure that needful in terms of aforesaid communication is done expeditiously, preferably, within a period of two weeks. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings in the appropriate Court of law, if he still remains aggrieved. Notices issued to respondents stand discharged.

Present petition stands disposed of in aforesaid terms, along with pending applications, if any.

January 02, 2025 ( Rajeev Raturi )

(Sandeep Sharma), Judge