IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA COPC No. 875 of 2026 Date of decision: 23.07.2026 Sh. Man Bahadur ...Petitioner. Versus Dr. Sanjay Sood, IFS Managing Director ...Respondent. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Romesh Verma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. Bonit, Advocate, vice Mr. A. K.Gupta, Advocate. For the respondent : Mr. D. S. Kainthla, Advocate. Romesh Verma, Judge (Oral): The present petition has been filed alleging non-compliance of the judgment passed by this Court on 24.02.2026 in CWP No. 1419 of 2026, which reads as follows: “As the petitioner has approached the Court directly without firstly approaching the competent Authority, as prayed for, this petition is disposed of with the direction that in the event of the petitioner filing a separate representation with regard to the issue raised in this petition to the competent Authority within a period of four weeks from today, let the same be decided in accordance with law, within a period of 12 weeks thereafter, in view of the averments made therein as well as judgments, if any, being relied upon by the petitioner, by passing a speaking order. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any also stand disposed of accordingly.”

2. As per the office order dated 22.07.2026, it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the claim of the present petitioner has been accepted, whereby the services of the petitioner were considered for calculating his eight years of continuous daily-1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? -2- wage service w.e.f. 1st April 1989, and granted him work-charge status upon completion of eight years of service w.e.f. 1st April 1997 on notional basis. 3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the respondent-corporation that they have complied with the judgment in its letter and spirit. 4. Faced with this situation, the learned counsel for the petitioner though submits that some relief has been granted to the petitioner, however, the respondents have failed to redress the grievances of the petitioner in its entirety. He seeks permission to avail appropriate remedy as available to the petitioner under the relevant provisions of law for the redressal of his remaining grievances. Liberty granted. 5. The petition stands disposed of, in the aforesaid terms. Notice is discharged. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of (Romesh Verma) Judge July 23, 2026. (Nisha)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA COPC No. 875 of 2026 Date of decision: 23.07.2026 Sh. Man Bahadur ...Petitioner. Versus Dr. Sanjay Sood, IFS Managing Director ...Respondent. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Romesh Verma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. Bonit, Advocate, vice Mr. A. K.Gupta, Advocate. For the respondent : Mr. D. S. Kainthla, Advocate. Romesh Verma, Judge (Oral): The present petition has been filed alleging non-compliance of the judgment passed by this Court on 24.02.2026 in CWP No. 1419 of 2026, which reads as follows: “As the petitioner has approached the Court directly without firstly approaching the competent Authority, as prayed for, this petition is disposed of with the direction that in the event of the petitioner filing a separate representation with regard to the issue raised in this petition to the competent Authority within a period of four weeks from today, let the same be decided in accordance with law, within a period of 12 weeks thereafter, in view of the averments made therein as well as judgments, if any, being relied upon by the petitioner, by passing a speaking order. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any also stand disposed of accordingly.”

2. As per the office order dated 22.07.2026, it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the claim of the present petitioner has been accepted, whereby the services of the petitioner were considered for calculating his eight years of continuous daily-1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? -2- wage service w.e.f. 1st April 1989, and granted him work-charge status upon completion of eight years of service w.e.f. 1st April 1997 on notional basis. 3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the respondent-corporation that they have complied with the judgment in its letter and spirit. 4. Faced with this situation, the learned counsel for the petitioner though submits that some relief has been granted to the petitioner, however, the respondents have failed to redress the grievances of the petitioner in its entirety. He seeks permission to avail appropriate remedy as available to the petitioner under the relevant provisions of law for the redressal of his remaining grievances. Liberty granted. 5. The petition stands disposed of, in the aforesaid terms. Notice is discharged. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of (Romesh Verma) Judge July 23, 2026. (Nisha)