Himachal Pradesh High Court
EX.PT/112/2026 of VIKRAM SINGH Vs STATE OF HP AND OTHERS on 3 September 2026
COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Execution Petition No.112 of 2026 Date of Decision: 3.9.2026 _____________________________________________________________________ Vikram Singh ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble
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.112 of 2026
Date of Decision: 3.9.2026 _____________________________________________________________________ Vikram Singh
……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors.
…....Respondents
Coram
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?
For the Petitioner: Mr. Arun Kumar, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General and Mr. Ravi Chauhan & Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General. ___________________________________________________________________________
Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)
By way of present execution petition, prayer has been made by the petitioner for implementation and execution of order/judgment dated 22.7.2022, passed by coordinate Bench of this Court in CWPOA No.6748 of 2019, titled Vikram Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors., whereby afore petition came to be disposed of with a direction to respondents/competent authority to extend the benefit of regularization to the petitioner in terms of regularization policy framed by the state government in the year 2009, from the date petitioner completed eight
2 years of service with 240 days in each calendar year along with consequential/financial benefits, which were restricted to three years prior to the filing of OA. Since no action, whatsoever, came to be taken at the behest of the respondents pursuant to aforesaid direction, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings.
2. Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the respondents, states that though he has every reason to presume and believe that by now, order/judgment sought to be executed, must have been complied with in its totality, but if not, same would be definitely complied with within a period of three weeks from today.
3. Consequently, in view of the fair stand adopted by learned counsel for the respondents, this Court sees no reason to keep present petition alive and accordingly, same is disposed of with direction to the respondents to do the needful in terms of judgment alleged to have been violated within a period of four weeks, failing which petitioner would be at liberty to get the present petition revived so that appropriate action in accordance with law is taken towards implementation of the order/judgment.
September 3, 2026
(Sandeep Sharma), (manjit)
Judge