Himachal Pradesh High Court
EX.P./2442/2026 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.
2026:HHC:44729
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA
Ex. Petition No. 2442 of 2026
Date of decision: 12.10.2026. Sanjay Bhatti
...Petitioner.
Versus
State of H.P. & others
...Respondents.
Coram:
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. C.N. Singh, Advocate.
For the respondents : Mr. Varun Chandel, Additional Advocate General, for respondents No. 1 and 2.
Mr. Susheel Gautam, Advocate, for respondents No. 3 and 4.
Ranjan Sharma, Judge:
Petitioner has come up before this Court, seeking execution and implementation of the order/judgment dated 23.04.2026 [Annexure E-1], passed in CWP No. 5905 of 2026, titled as Sanjay Bhatti versus State of Himachal Pradesh & others, whereby, a Coordinate Bench of this Court had passed the following orders:- “4. In light of the fact that the petitioner is relying upon the order that stands passed by the
Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes respondents-Authorities, who themselves admit that the case of the petitioner is akin to that of Yudhbir Singh, this petition is disposed of with the direction that respondents shall confer the same benefits upon the petitioner, by treating the direction passed in Yudhibir Singh’s case, as having been passed in this case also. Daily wage service rendered by the petitioner shall be regularized from due date notionally and actual benefits shall accrue three years preceding the date of filing of the writ petition by the petitioner and needful be done within a period of three months from today. This order is being passed as now there is no dispute that the matter which was pending before the Hon’ble Apex Court, on account of pendency whereof, the Authorities were deferring the decision, stands adjudicated by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.”
2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that after passing of the order/judgment, the petitioner had submitted a representation on 07.05.2026 [Annexure P-2], but the Respondent-Competent Authority has not released the benefits in terms of the judgment
3. Heard.
4. Notice. Mr. Varun Chandel, Learned Additional Advocate General and Mr. Susheel Gautam, Advocate, waive service of notice on behalf of respondents No. 1 and 2 and respondents No. 3 and 4, respectively.
5. At this stage, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, on Instructions, states that petitioner shall be satisfied, in case, Respondents are directed to implement the order/judgment in a time bound manner. [Statement Taken On Record]
6. Prayer being innocuous is not opposed by Learned Respondent Counsels also.
7. Considering the matter in above perspective instant petition is closed, with directions to the Respondents to implement the order/judgment within six weeks.
8. In case, any grievance, still remains, the petitioner may seek appropriate remedy, hereinafter, in accordance with law.
9. In aforesaid terms, the instant petition stands disposed of, alongwith pending applications, if any.
(Ranjan Sharma)
Judge October 12, 2026. (kck)