Himachal Pradesh High Court
EX.P./393/2024 of SANT RAM Vs STATE OF HP AND ANR on 11 September 2026
COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Execution Petition No. 393 of 2024 Date of Decision: 11.09.2026 _______________________________________________________ Sant Ram …….Petitioners Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & another … Respondents
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. 393 of 2024 Date of Decision: 11.09.2026 _______________________________________________________ Sant Ram
…….Petitioners
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & another … Respondents ______________________________________________________
Coram:
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1
For the Petitioners: Ms. Shikha Chauhan, 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):
While placing on record communication dated 10.09.2026, issued under the signatures of Superintending Engineer, 4th Circle, HPPWD, Shimla, enclosing therewith copy of office order dated 06.06.2026, issued under the signature of Engineer-in-Chief, Himachal Pradesh, Mr. Anish Banshtu, learned Deputy Advocate General, submits that the mandate contained in the judgment, sought to be executed, has been complied with.
2. Having carefully perused the aforesaid documents, which are taken on record, this Court finds that as per directions issued by this Court, appointment has been offered to the petitioner subject to final outcome of the SLP proposed to be preferred by the respondent- State against the judgment passed by the Division Bench.
1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2
3. Consequently, in view of the above, nothing remains to be adjudicated in the instant proceedings and accordingly, same are closed, reserving liberty to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings in appropriate Court of law qua the surviving grievances, if any. However, respondents are directed to ensure that consequential benefits flowing from the judgment, sought to be executed, shall be released in favour of the petitioner strictly in terms of the judgment passed in Ramesh Chand's case in LPA No.435 of 2012.
(Sandeep Sharma),
Judge September 11,2026 (shankar)