Dinesh Kumar v. Devesh Kumar and Ors

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

AT SHIMLA

COPC No.802 of 2026__

IN

CWP No.9866 of 2024

Decided on: 30.09.2026 ____________________________________________________________ Dinesh Kumar

.....Petitioner Versus

Devesh Kumar and others

....Respondents

Coram:

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge

1Whether approved for reporting?

For the petitioner: Mr. Hamender Singh Chandel, Advocate.

For the respondents: Mr. Varun Chandel, Additional Advocate General, for Respondents No.1 and 2.

Mr. Mukul Sood, Advocate, for Respondent No.3.

Ranjan Sharma, Judge

Petitioner has invoked the contempt jurisdiction of this Court, alleging wilful intentional non-compliance of the judgment dated 12.09.2024 [Annexure-A], passed by this Court, in CWP No.9866 of 2024, titled as Dinesh Kumar versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others. The operative part of judgment dated 12.09.2024 [Annexure-A], reads as under:- "4. A perusal of the impugned order dated

03.07.2024 makes it evident that the case of the petitioner has not been considered in terms

Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? of Sheela Devi's case supra. In view of above, impugned order dated 03.07.2024 (Annexure P-9) is quashed. Respondent No.2 is directed to decide the case of the petitioner afresh in terms of Sheela Devi's case supra, within a period of three weeks from today.

¶5In the case at hand, it would be pertinent to mention that petitioner has been un-necessarily subjected to 3rd round of litigation. Hence, in this backdrop, the case of the petitioner be decided by duly applying mind to the facts of the case at hand in terms of judgment passed in Sheela Devi's case supra. It be ensured that the petitioner is not further subjected to unnecessary litigation. If, in case the petitioner is subjected to unnecessary litigation, then the concerned authorities shall be liable to pay costs on account of unnecessary litigation to which the petitioner will be subjected."

2.

Since the judgment dated 12.09.2024 was not complied with, therefore, the petitioner had filed the instant petition [COPC No.802 of 2026].

PROCEEDING UPON ISSUANCE OF NOTICE:

3.

Upon issuance of notice in present proceedings on 14.07.2026 the Respondents were duly represented through Learned Counsels and upon listing of matter on 17.07.2026, they were directed to file Compliance Affidavits. The matter was again listed on

05.08.2026 when, the Compliance Affidavits were not filed. Upon listing of the matter on 09.09.2026, Respondents No.1 to 3 have tendered a copy of Instructions dated 08.09.2026 indicating that Administrative Department has prepared the Cabinet Note and the matter was to be placed before the Council of Ministers for approval.

4.

Pertinently, the Division Bench of this Court while dealing with an application i.e. CMP (M) No.812 of 2026, titled as Municipal Corporation Shimla versus Besar Lal, decided on

07.08.2026, directed Respondents to ensure implementation of judgment within the outer limit of 07.10.2026.

LATEST COMPLIANCE AFFIDAVIT:

5.

Upon listing of the matter today, Respondent No.3-Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Shimla, has filed Compliance Affidavit dated 29.09.2026 in the Court [Taken on Record]. Copy of the Compliance Affidavit has been furnished to Learned Counsel for the petitioner. The operative part of the Compliance Affidavit, reads as under:- "3. That in pursuance to letter dated 26.09.2026, issued by Secretary (UD) and letter dated

15.09.2026 issued by the Principal Secretary Finance to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, the Director (UD) of Himachal Pradesh vide letter dated 26.09.2026 has directed the deponent Corporation to issue necessary order in the matter under reference including other similarly situated cases pending for compliance on the analogy of Sheela Devi case at Administrative level in accordance with instruction issued by the Finance Department on 15.09.2026 clarifying followingly:

i. In those cases where the judgment has attained finality financial implication involved is due to implementation of this judgment and there is no recourse except to implement the same and also that there is a contempt notice for implementation of any orders already passed by the Hon'ble Court, these instructions will not be applicable.

ii. All other cases shall be processed in accordance with already issued instructions of the Finance Department. The copy of said letters dated 26.09.2026 and 15.09.2026 are annexed herewith as Annexure R-3/1 (colly).

¶4That in pursuance to letter dated 26.09.2026, issued by Secretary (UD) and letter dated.

15.09.2026 issued by the Principal Secretary Finance to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, deponent Corporation has passed the speaking order dated 29.09.2026. The copy of said order is annexed as Annexure R-3/2 (colly)."

6.

Compliance Affidavit refers to speaking order i.e. dated 29.09.2026 [Annexure R-3/2] passed by Respondent No.3-Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Shimla, reads as under:-

"NOW THEREFORE, in compliance to the orders passed by the Hon'ble Court in CWP No.4485/2019 followed by directions given by Hon'ble High Court from time to time in various petitions and further approval given by of the Govt. of Himachal Pradesh vide letter dated 26.09.2026 as conveyed by the Director, Urban Development vide letter dated

26.09.2026 further in view of discussion made herein above, The service of the following mentioned petitioners rendered on contract basis is hereby ordered to be counted for the purpose of pension, on the analogy of Sheela Devi case:

S. N. Case No. Name of Petitioner

¶1CWP No.9105/2024 Sh. Shanti Swaroop S/o Sh. Bishamber Lal Sood

¶2CWP No.9765/2024 Smt. Champa Thakur D/o Sh. S.R. Thakur

¶3CWP No.9106/2024

Smt. Sunita Sharma D/o Joginder Kumar

4.

CWP No.9107/2024 Sh. Prakash Chand S/o Sh. Geeta Ram

¶5CWP No.10213/2024 Sh. Brij Lal Khachi S/o Hari Saran

6.

CWP No.9748/2024 Sh. Brij Mohan s/o Sh. Khewan Ram

7.

CWP No.9126/2024 Smt. Sudesh Bala w/o Sh. Mast Ram

8.

CWP No.10210/2024 Sh. Sandeep Kumar s/o Bashi Ram

9.

CWP No.9870/2024 Smt. Suman Lata W/o Sh, Ramesh

10.

CWP No.9764/2024 Smt. Sushma Sharma W/o Sh. Parveen Kumar Sharma

11.

CWP No.9864/2024 Sh. Bal Krishan S/o Sh. Devi Dutta

¶12CWP No.9746/2024 Sh. Kamlesh s/o Sh. Achru Ram

13.

CWP No.9866/2024 Sh. Dinesh S/o Sh. Mehar Chand

14.

CWP No.9865/2024 Sh. Besar Lal S/o Sh. Tinknu Ram

¶15CWP No.9863/2024

Sh. Baldev Kumar S/o Sh, Ram Dass

16.

CWP No.9871/2024 Sh. Bharat Bhushan S/o Sh. Manohar Lal

17.

CWP No.9862/2024 Sh. Ram Singh S/o Sh. Pholo Ram

18.

CWP No.9867/2024 Sh. Jagdish Kumar S/o Sh. Bhoop Ram

19.

CWP No.9756/2024 Sh. Manohar Lal S/o Sh. Babu Ram

20.

CWP No.9869/2024 Smt. Raksha Bhotta D/o Udham Singh Chauhan

21.

CWP No.10214/2024 Sh. Hanumant Singh Kanwar S/o Sh. Pratap Singh Kanwar

22.

CWP No.10212/2024 Smt. Usha Chauhan w/o Sh. Radha Krishan

23.

CWP No.9755/2024 Sh. Davinder Pal S/o Sh. Kuldeep Singh

24.

CWP No.9868/2024 Sh. Daleep Kumar S/o Late Sh. Ram Saran

25.

CWP No.4485/2019 Sh. Surinder Chand S/o Raghubir Chand

26.

CWP No.4485/2019 Sh. Surinder Kumar s/o Sh. Padam Devi Sharma

7.

Perusal of the Compliance Affidavit and the speaking order/Office Order dated 29.09.2026 [Annexure R-3/2] indicates that the State Authorities including Director Urban Development, Himachal Pradesh Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Shimla, have agreed in principle to count contractual service of petitioner for the purposes of pension/revised pension, on the analogy of Sheela Devi's case.

8.

Though in terms of Compliance Affidavit and the aforesaid Office Order, the petitioner has been held entitled for counting of contractual service for pension but the claim for grant of actual pension/revised pension [to the retirees, if any, as in Speaking Order/Office Order dated 29.09.2026 [Annexure R-3/2], needs to be processed and taken to logical end, hereinafter, in accordance with law.

9.

Respondents No.1 and 2 despite Orders dated

09.09.2026 have chosen not to file their respective Compliance Affidavits, despite four opportunities and said practice is deprecated.

¶10Considering the matter in above perspective, this Court gives a quietus to the instant petition; with directions to the Respondents to ensure implementation of judgment dated 04.09.2024 [Annexure-A]; and to release the admissible benefits, if any, in letter and spirit, expeditiously, but not later than

30.11.2026, after completing all codal formalities, so as to enforce the mandate of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sheela Devi [supra], to the petitioner herein.

¶11This Court hopes trusts that Respondents shall take all necessary steps to ensure compliance of the mandate in aforesaid terms.

¶12Notices, issued to the Respondents, shall stand discharged, accordingly.

In aforesaid terms, the instant petition and all pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

(Ranjan Sharma)

Judge September 30, 2026

[Bhardwaj]