Himachal Pradesh High Court
EX.P./1262/2026 on 5 November 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:49038
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Execution Petition No.1262
of 2026
Decided on: 05
th November, 2026
_______________________________________________________ Hem Prakash ....Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & others
...Respondents ________________________________________________________
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the petitioner: Mr. Pavan Kumar, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Hemant Kumar Verma, Deputy Advocate General. . Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge (Oral)
Learned Deputy Advocate General has produced a copy of instructions (undated) issued by the Director of School Education, Himachal Pradesh and copies of office orders dated 30.01.2026 and 08.04.2026 passed by the Deputy Directors of School Education (Elementary), Mandi, District Mandi, H.P. and Kangra at Dharamshala, District Dharamshala, H.P. respectively, which are taken on record.
2. A perusal of the aforesaid orders reveals that the office orders dated 14.08.2024 and 23.07.2023 passed by the Deputy Directors of School Education (Elementary), Mandi District Mandi,
Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
H.P. and Kangra at Dharamshala, District Kangra, H.P. have been withdrawn.
3. This Court while disposing of the writ petition preferred by the petitioner along with other petitioners had only given a direction to respondent No.2 (Director of Elementary Education) to consider/examine the representation/legal notice (Annexure P-4) within four weeks.
4. No doubt, earlier the benefits were extended in favour of the petitioner and other petitioners in the writ petition, but once the said office orders have been withdrawn subsequently as mentioned above, the petitioner, if aggrieved by the aforesaid orders can only rake up the issue by way of appropriate proceedings and not by way of present execution petition, more especially when this Court had only given a direction to respondent No.2 (Director of Elementary Education) to consider and decide the representation.
5. Since the mandate contained in the judgment dated 30.11.2023, passed in CWP No.9561 of 2023, titled, Raman Kumar and others vs. State of H.P. & another, qua the petitioner has duly been complied with, the execution petition is disposed of as having been fully satisfied. However, in case, the petitioner is aggrieved by the aforesaid office orders dated 30.01.2026 and 08.04.2026, he may avail an appropriate remedy in accordance with law.
6. The execution petition is accordingly disposed of. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
th November, 2026
( Jiya Lal Bhardwaj ) (ankit) Judge