Himachal Pradesh High Court
EX.P./2437/2026 on 12 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
Execution Petition No.2437 of 2026 Date of Decision: 12.10.2026 _______________________________________________________ Hem Raj Sharma
…….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. Rajesh Verma, 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):
Learned counsel for the petitioner states that pursuant to the mandate contained in the judgment sought to be executed, petitioner has been regularized from the due date, but till date, consequential benefits have not been released.
2. Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General, while putting in appearance on behalf of the respondents, fairly states that consequential benefits, if not already released, shall be released to the petitioner expeditiously.
Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? High Court of H.P. ::: Downloaded on - 28/10/2026 17:37:36 :::CIS
3. Consequently, in view of the above, nothing remains to be adjudicated in the instant petition and accordingly, the same is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to ensure that consequential benefits flowing from compliance of the judgment sought to be executed, if not already released, shall be released in favour of the petitioner, expeditiously, preferably within two months from today, failing which petitioner would be at liberty to seek revival of the present petition, so that appropriate action in accordance with law is taken towards attachment of the property of the department as well as the salary of the erring officials.
(Sandeep Sharma),
Judge October 12, 2026 (sunil)
High Court of H.P. ::: Downloaded on - 28/10/2026 17:37:36 :::CIS