Narinder Kumar Vs Nipun Jindal — Himachal Pradesh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Narinder Kumar Vs Nipun Jindal — Himachal Pradesh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petition disposed of with a direction to the respondent to ensure that retiral benefits, in terms of the earlier order detailed in the judgment, if not already released, are released expeditiously, preferably within three weeks from the date of decision; failing which the petitioner is at liberty to seek revival of the petition for appropriate action against erring officials; notice issued to the respondent discharged.

Issue for consideration

Whether the judgment directing release of retiral benefits to the petitioner, alleged to have been violated, has been / will be implemented by the respondent.

Court's answer

In view of the respondent's communication and undertaking, nothing remained to be adjudicated; the petition was disposed of with a direction to the respondent to ensure that retiral benefits, in terms of the earlier order, if not already released, are released expeditiously, preferably within three weeks from the date of decision.

Ratio / Principle

If the retiral benefits are not released within the indicated period, the petitioner would be at liberty to get the present petition revived so that appropriate action in accordance with law is taken against the erring officials; notice issued to the respondent was discharged.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

COPC No. 839 of 2025 (High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla; Sandeep Sharma, J.; decided 26.08.2025): Petition concerning alleged violation/non-implementation of a prior judgment directing release of retiral benefits to the petitioner. Counsel for the respondent-Corporation placed on record a communication dated 25.08.2025 of the Managing Director, HRTC, Shimla, stating that a decision had been taken to implement the judgment and directions issued for release of benefit, and undertook that retiral benefits would be released within three weeks. The Court held nothing remained to be adjudicated and disposed of the petition with a direction to release the retiral benefits expeditiously, preferably within three weeks; failing compliance, the petitioner was left at liberty to revive the petition for action against erring officials. Notice to the respondent discharged.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

COPC No. 839 of 2025 Date of Decision: 26.08.2025

_____________________________________________________________________ Narinder Kumar ……...Petitioner Versus Dr. Nipun Jindal …....Respondent
Coram
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?
For the Petitioner: Mr. Vijay Singh Bhatia, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Ms. Shrutika Chauhan, Advocate vice Mr. Dheeraj K.Vashisht, Advocate.
__________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J .(Oral)_

While placing on record communication dated 25.08.2025, issued under the signatures of Managing Director, HRTC, Shimla, which is taken on record, Ms. Shrutika Chauhan, learned vice counsel for the respondent-Corporation, states that decision has already been taken to implement the judgment, alleged to have been violated and directions already stand issued to concerned quarters for release of benefit to the petitioner at the earliest. Though in afore order, no time line has been given for release of retiral benefits to the petitioner, but learned counsel for the respondent-Corporation states that in any eventuality, retiral benefits shall be released to the petitioner within three weeks from today.

Consequently, in view of the above, nothing remains to be adjudicated in the instant petition and accordingly, the same is

2

disposed of with a direction to the respondent to ensure that retiral benefits, in terms of order detailed hereinabove, if not already released, are released expeditiously, preferably within three weeks from today, failing which petitioner would be at liberty to get the present petition revived so that appropriate action in accordance with law is taken against the erring officials. Notice issued to the respondent is discharged.

August 26, 2025 (Sunil)

(Sandeep Sharma), Judge