Himachal Pradesh High Court
EX.P./2244/2026 of Pooja Devi Vs DIRECTOR OF ANIMAL HUSBANDRY on 28 September 2026
COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Execution Petition No. 2244 of 2026 Date of Decision: 28.09.2026 _______________________________________________________ Pooja Devi …….Petitioner Versus Director of Animal Husbandry … Respondent
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. 2244 of 2026 Date of Decision: 28.09.2026 _______________________________________________________ Pooja Devi
…….Petitioner
Versus
Director of Animal Husbandry
… Respondent ______________________________________________________
Coram:
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1
For the Petitioner: Mr. Anil Kumar, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocate Generals with Mr. Ravi Chauhan & Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General. _______________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral):
By way of instant Execution Petition, prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioner for issuance of directions to the respondents to implement/ execute the order/judgment dated 22.09.2025 passed by this Court in CWP No. 5267 of 2023, titled Uttam Ram & others vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others.
2. Careful perusal of aforesaid order/judgment, sought to be executed in the instant proceedings, reveals that this Court, while allowing the petition, directed the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioners as per the existing policy of 2017, as and when they have completed requisite 3 years of service alongwith monetary benefits and other consequential benefits including seniority. Since, despite there being specific direction to do the 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2 needful, as taken note hereinabove, respondent has failed to do so, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings.
3. Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, while accepting notice on behalf of the respondent, states that though he has every reason to believe and presume that by now aforesaid judgment/ order must have been complied with, but if not, same would be complied with within a period of three weeks from today.
4. Consequently, in view of the fair statement made by learned Additional Advocate General, this Court sees no reason to keep the present petition alive and as such, same is accordingly disposed of with the direction to the respondent to do the needful in terms of order/judgment dated 22.09.2025 passed by this Court, positively within a period of three weeks, if not already done, failing which, petitioner would be at liberty to get the present proceedings revived, so that appropriate action, in accordance with law, is taken towards implementation of the judgment/ order, sought to be executed in the instant proceedings.
(Sandeep Sharma),
Judge September 28, 2026 (shankar)