Himachal Pradesh High Court
CMP/22330/2026 of CHANDRA VATI Vs THE STATE OF HP AND OTHERS on 14 September 2026
VATI Versus THE STATE OF HP AND OTHERS CMP-22330 of 2026 in EX.P. - 1942 of 2025 14.09.2026 Present: Mr. Vinay Mehta, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General with Mr. Ravi Chauhan & Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General, for
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.
CHANDRA VATI Versus THE STATE OF HP AND OTHERS
CMP-22330 of 2026 in EX.P. - 1942 of 2025
14.09.2026 Present: Mr. Vinay Mehta, Advocate, for the petitioners.
Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General with Mr. Ravi Chauhan & Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General, for the respondents-State.
While placing on record communication dated 23.09.2025, issued under the signatures of Director, School Education, Mr. Ravi Chauhan, learned Deputy Advocate General, states that mandate contained in the judgment sought to be executed stands duly complied with.
Careful perusal of communication dated 23.09.2025 as well as copy of office order dated 20.09.2025 annexed thereto clearly reveals that respondents, after having considered and decided the representation of the petitioner vide office order dated 08.01.2025, have treated the petitioner as a deemed regular employee of the Department with effect from the date of her initial appointment/joining on contract basis.
Having carefully perused aforesaid documents, which are taken on record, vis-à-vis judgment sought to be executed, this Court is convinced and satisfied that mandate contained in the judgment sought to be executed stands complied with and as such, nothing remains to be adjudicated in the instant application and accordingly, the same is closed with a direction to the respondents to ensure that consequential
benefits, if any, flowing from the aforesaid judgment, if not already released, shall be released expeditiously, preferably within two months from today. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings in the appropriate Court of law qua the surviving grievance, if any.
(Sandeep Sharma),
Judge
September 14, 2026
(Sunil)