Disposed¶14

Shiv Prakash v. the State of Hp and Others

Himachal Pradesh HC16 Oct 2025EX.P./1927/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Shiv Prakash v. State of H.P. and Others; Execution Petition No.1927 of 2025; High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla; decided 16.10.2025; Sandeep Sharma, J.; execution of judgment dated 02.06.2025 in CWP No.9151 of 2025; release of higher stage of pay Rs.30,500/-; Clerk with two years regular service; non-compliance by respondents; Additional Advocate General's assurance of compliance; four-week compliance direction; liberty to revive petition; petition disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the respondents to implement the judgment dated 02.06.2025 in CWP No.9151 of 2025 (release of the higher stage of pay of Rs.30,500/-) within four weeks; liberty reserved to the petitioner to seek revival of the petition upon failure of compliance. ¶14

Shiv Prakash Vs the State of Hp and Others — Himachal Pradesh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶14

Issue for consideration

Whether the judgment dated 02.06.2025 passed in CWP No.9151 of 2025 (directing release of the higher stage of pay of Rs.30,500/- to the petitioner) has been or will be implemented by the respondents, and how the execution petition should be disposed of.

¶8

Court's answer

In view of the fair stand adopted by the learned Additional Advocate General, the Court saw no reason to keep the present petition alive and disposed of it with a direction to the respondents to do the needful in terms of the judgment sought to be executed within a period of four weeks.

¶14

Ratio / Principle

Failing compliance within four weeks, the petitioner would be at liberty to get the present petition revived so that appropriate action in accordance with law is taken towards the implementation of the order/judgment.

¶14

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Execution Petition No.1927 of 2025 — Shiv Prakash v. State of H.P. and Others (High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla; decided 16.10.2025; Sandeep Sharma, J., oral). The petitioner sought execution and implementation of judgment dated 02.06.2025 passed by this Court in CWP No.9151 of 2025, whereby the writ petition had been allowed and the respondents directed to release the higher stage of pay of Rs.30,500/- to the petitioner w.e.f. his completing two years of regular service as Clerk, within four weeks. As no action followed, the petitioner approached the Court. The learned Additional Advocate General stated that the order/judgment was presumed to have been complied with in its totality, and if not, would definitely be complied with within four weeks. Holding this stand fair, the Court disposed of the petition with a direction to the respondents to do the needful in terms of the judgment sought to be executed within four weeks, failing which the petitioner would be at liberty to get the petition revived for appropriate action in accordance with law towards implementation of the order/judgment.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

Execution Petition No.1927 of 2025 Date of Decision: 16.10.2025

¶3

Sh. Shiv Prakash ……...Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and Others …....Respondents

¶4

Coram

¶5

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?

¶6

For the Petitioner: Mr. Sohail Khan, proxy counsel, for Mr. Arvind Negi, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol and Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for State.

¶7

Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)

¶8

By way of instant execution petition, prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioner for execution and implementation of judgment dated 02.06.2025, passed by this Court in CWP No.9151 of 2025, whereby this Court passed the following order:

¶9

“4. This writ petition is accordingly allowed. Respondents are directed to release the higher stage of pay of Rs.30,500/- to the petitioner w.e.f. his completing two years of regular service as Clerk. This to be done within four weeks from today. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, to also stand disposed of..”

¶10

Since no action, whatsoever, came to be taken at the behest of the respondents pursuant to aforesaid direction, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings.

¶11

¶12

Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General,

¶13

while putting in appearance on behalf of the respondents, states that though he has every reason to presume and believe that by now, order/judgment sought to be executed, must have been complied with in its totality, but if not, same would be definitely complied with within a period of four weeks from today.

¶14

Consequently, in view of fair stand adopted by the learned Additional Advocate General, this Court sees no reason to keep present petition alive and accordingly, same is disposed of with direction to the respondents to do the needful in terms of judgment sought to be executed, within a period of four weeks, failing which petitioner would be at liberty to get the present petition revived so that appropriate action in accordance with law is taken towards the implementation of the order/judgment.

¶15

October 16, 2025 (Rajeev Raturi)

¶16

(Sandeep Sharma), Judge

Shiv Prakash v. the State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shiv Prakash v. the State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shiv Dutt Vs Hrtc and Others

Kalpana Kumari Vs the State of Hp and Others

Prashant Thakur and Others Vs the State of Hp and Others

Reena Rai Vs the State of Hp and Others

Radhika Vs the State of Hp and Others

M/S Ambuja Cements Ltd. (Unit Rauri) Vs the State of Hp and Others