Himachal Pradesh High Court
EX.P./1874/2026 of CHHERING DORJE Vs THE STATE OF HP AND OTHERS on 3 September 2026
HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Execution Petition No.1874 of 2026 Date of Decision: 03.09.2026 _______________________________________________________ Chhering Dorje …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. … 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.1874 of 2026 Date of Decision: 03.09.2026 _______________________________________________________ Chhering Dorje
…….Petitioner
Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors.
… Respondents _______________________________________________________
Coram:
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting? 1
For the Petitioner: Mr. Naresh Kaul, 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 31.08.2026, issued under the signatures of Director, School Education, Himachal Pradesh, learned counsel for the petitioner states that Government of Himachal Pradesh has taken a decision to grant the benefit of H.T. increment on the analogy of the judgment rendered in CWP No. 5390 of 2024, titled Surya Prabha & Others v. State of Himachal Pradesh & Others and as such, the petitioner would be content and satisfied if the benefit of the judgment passed in Surya Prabha is also extended to the petitioner within a time-bound manner.
Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. Having carefully perused mandate contained in the judgment sought to be executed vis-a-vis communication placed on record, this court finds that no prejudice, if any, would be caused to the respondent-State in case petitioner is also extended the benefit in terms of the judgment rendered in Surya Prabha (supra), rather, such course would be strictly in conformity with the judgment sought to be executed. Accordingly, present petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to do the needful in terms of aforesaid communication dated 31.08.2026, expeditiously preferably, within four weeks, 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 03, 2026 (sunil)