Himachal Pradesh High Court
EX.P./1090/2024 of AKHIL MODGIL AND OTHERS Vs STATE OF HP AND ANOTHER on 9 October 2026
HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Execution Petition No.1090 of 2024 Date of Decision: 09.10.2026 _______________________________________________________ Akhil Modgil & Ors. …….Petitioners Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. … Respondents Coram: Hon’ble
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Execution Petition No.1090 of 2024 Date of Decision: 09.10.2026 _______________________________________________________ Akhil Modgil & Ors.
…….Petitioners
Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr.
… Respondents
Coram:
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting? 1
For the Petitioners: Mr. Anshul Jairath, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General with Mr. Ravi Chauhan & Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General. _______________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral):
While placing on record communication dated 08.10.2026, issued under the signature of Engineer-in-Chief, HPPWD, Shimla, enclosing therewith copy of office order dated 26.07.2025, issued by the aforesaid authority, Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, states that though case of the petitioner has been rejected, but now, on account of disposal of the SLP filed by the respondent-State in Taj Mohammad's case/Virender Kumar's case, case of the petitioner shall be considered in the light of the aforesaid judgments and necessary benefits in terms thereof shall
Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
be granted/extended to the petitioner within a period of four months, as has been undertaken before Hon'ble Apex Court.
2. In view of the above, nothing remains to be adjudicated in the instant petition and accordingly, the same is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to ensure that needful in terms of the judgments sought to be executed is done expeditiously, preferably on or before 03.12.2026, by which time period of four months granted by Hon'ble Apex Court shall come to an end, failing which petitioner would be at liberty to seek revival of the present petition, so that appropriate action, in accordance with law, is taken towards attachment of the property of the department as well as the salary of the erring official.
(Sandeep Sharma),
Judge October 09, 2026 (sunil)