Himachal Pradesh High Court
EX.P./735/2024 of PRIYANKA NAGU Vs STATE OF HP AND ANOTHER on 5 October 2026
HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Execution Petition No.735 of 2024 Date of Decision: 05.10.2026 _______________________________________________________ Priyanka Nagu …….Petitioners Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. … Respondents Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice
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.735 of 2024 Date of Decision: 05.10.2026 _______________________________________________________ Priyanka Nagu
…….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. Vinod Chauhan, 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 03.10.2026, issued under the signature of the Director, Technical Education, Vocational & Industrial Training, Himachal Pradesh, Sundernagar, Mr. Ravi Chauhan, learned Deputy Advocate General, states that mandate contained in the judgment sought to be executed stands complied with. He states that since issue with regard to counting of service rendered on contract prior to regularisation already stands settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Taj Mohammad's case, wherein time has been granted to the respondent-State to
Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
comply with the mandate contained in the judgment within a period of four months, coupled with the fact that entire seniority list in the department may have to be reviewed, mandate contained in the judgment sought to be executed, which has attained finality, shall be complied with positively within a period of four months.
2. In view of the aforesaid undertaking given by the learned Deputy Advocate General, nothing remains to be adjudicated in the instant proceedings and accordingly, the same are closed with a direction to the respondents to ensure that consequential benefits, if any, flowing from the judgment sought to be executed are released/extended to the petitioner positively within a period of four months, 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.
List for compliance in the first week of January, 2027.
(Sandeep Sharma),
Judge October 05, 2026 (sunil)