Himachal Pradesh High Court
EX.P./2543/2025 on 15 October 2026
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.
Ex. Pet. No.2543 of 2025
Decided on: 15th October, 2026
Brikam Singh and others
....Petitioners
versus
State of H.P. and another
...Respondents
Coram
Hon’ble Mr.Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1
For the petitioners: Mr. Shekhar Badola, Advocate.
For the respondents: Mr. Balvinder Singh Ballu, Deputy Advocate General.
Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge (Oral)
By way of present execution petition, the petitioners are seeking implementation of judgment dated 02.05.2024 passed in CWP No.2984 of 2024, titled, Brikam Singh and others vs. State of HP and another.
2. It is apt to reproduce the operative part of the judgment which reads as under:- “4. Accordingly, respondents No.2 is directed to consider and decide the case of the petitioners in light of judgment passed by Coordinate Bench of this Hon’ble Court in CWPOA No.4000 of 2020, titled as, Dr. Ajay Deol & Ors. vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. decided on 16.09.2023, along with connected matter, within eight weeks from the date of production of a copy of this order.”
1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
3. A perusal of the direction quoted above reveals that respondent No.2 was directed to consider and decide the case of the petitioners in light of the judgment passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in CWPOA No.4000 of 2020, titled, Dr. Ajay Deol and others vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and another, decided on 16.09.2023.
4. The petitioners have also placed on record the judgment passed by this Court in Dr. Ajay Deol's case (supra).
5. Respondent No.2 has examined the cases of the petitioners and found that they do not fulfill the eligibility criteria regarding pension contained in the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. Further, the case of petitioners of CWP No.2984 of 2024 is not found similarly situated to the petitioner in CWPOA No.4000 of 2020.
6. This Court had only given the direction to respondent No.2 to consider and decide the case of the petitioners in light of the judgment passed in Dr. Ajay Deol's case (supra). Since Respondent No.2 has now passed an office order dated 17.07.2025, the mandate contained in the judgment sought to be executed has been complied with and nothing remains to be adjudicated in the present execution petition and the same is closed. However, in case the petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 17.07.2025, they are at liberty to avail an appropriate remedy in accordance with law. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
( Jiya Lal Bhardwaj ) 15th October, 2026
Judge (naveen)