Himachal Pradesh High Court
EX.P./2446/2026 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:44724
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA
Ex. Petition No. 2446 of 2026
Date of decision: 12.10.2026. Ruma Devi & others
...Petitioners.
Versus
State of H.P. & others
...Respondents.
Coram:
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioners : Mr. Surinder Saklani, Advocate.
For the respondents : Mr. Varun Chandel, Additional Advocate General.
Ranjan Sharma, Judge:
Petitioners have come up before this Court, seeking execution/implementation of the order/judgment dated 22.05.2026 [Annexure E-1], passed in CWP No. 7748of 2023, titled as Ruma Devi & others versus State of Himachal Pradesh & others, whereby, a Coordinate Bench of this Court, had passed the following orders:- “12. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. The act of the respondents of not considering the petitioners for appointment against the post of Panchkarma Masseurs, on the ground that their Diplomas were not recognized by the Government
Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes of Himachal Pradesh is held to be bad in law and respondents are directed to consider the candidature of the petitioners for the posts of Panchkarma Masseurs.”
2. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that after passing of the order/judgment [Annexure E-1], the petitioners had submitted a representation [Annexure E-2], requesting the respondents to implement the judgment but nothing has been done till today.
3. Heard.
4. Notice. Mr. Varun Chandel, Learned Additional Advocate General waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents.
5. At this stage, Learned Counsel, on Instructions, states that petitioners shall be satisfied, in case, Respondents are directed to implement the order/judgment in a time bound manner. [Statement Taken On Record].
6. Considering the matter in above perspective instant petition is disposed of with a direction to the Respondents-Competent Authority to implement the order/judgment, within a period of six weeks, from today.
7. In case, any grievance still remains, petitioners may seek appropriate remedy, hereinafter, in accordance with law.
8. In aforesaid terms, the instant petition stands disposed of, alongwith pending applications, if any.
(Ranjan Sharma)
Judge October 12, 2026. (kck)