Himachal Pradesh High Court
EX.P./710/2026 of NISHANT CHAUDHARY Vs STATE OF HP AND ORS on 1 September 2026
HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Execution Petition No. 710 of 2026 Date of Decision: 01.09.2026 _______________________________________________________ Nishant Chaudhary …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & others … 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.
2026:HHC:37149 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Execution Petition No. 710 of 2026 Date of Decision: 01.09.2026 _______________________________________________________ Nishant Chaudhary
…….Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & others … Respondents ______________________________________________________
Coram:
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1
For the Petitioner: Mr. Vijay Kumar, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocate Generals with Mr. Ravi Chauhan & Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General, for the respondent-State.
Mr. Mohit Thakur, Advocate, for respondent Nos. 2 and 4. _______________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral):
Respondents No. 2 and 4 have filed the reply/ compliance affidavit under the signatures of Commissioner (Temple)- cum-Deputy Commissioner, Una, District Una, Himachal Pradesh, perusal whereof reveals that pursuant to the directions contained in the judgment dated 19.11.2025 passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, competent authority considered the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground, but since at present there is no vacant post available against which the petitioner can be considered for appointment on compassionate ground, the representation/claim of the petitioner has been disposed of vide order 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2 2026:HHC:37149 dated 08.01.2026 with the observation that as and when some vacancy arises under the 5% quota, the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds shall be considered.
2. Having carefully perused the compliance affidavit/reply vis-à-vis mandate contained in the judgment, sought to be executed, this Court is persuaded to agree with learned counsel for respondents No. 2 to 4 that the mandate contained in the judgment, sought to be executed, has been duly complied with and as such, no further orders are required to be passed at this stage.
3. Accordingly, the present execution petition is disposed of, reserving liberty to the petitioner to approach the appropriate Court of law for redressal of surviving grievances, if any.
4. However, before parting, this Court wishes to observe that as and when a post under 5% quotas becomes available for compassionate appointment, the case of the petitioner shall be considered on priority basis.
In the aforesaid terms, the petition stands disposed of alongwith pending applications, if any.
(Sandeep Sharma),
Judge September 01,2026 (shankar)