Disposed¶14

Joginder Pal v. State of Hp and Ors.

Himachal Pradesh HC12 Nov 2025EX.P./2228/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Himachal Pradesh HC Execution Petition 2228/2025, Joginder Pal v. State of HP, Sandeep Sharma J., 12.11.2025 — compliance with mandate of judgment in CWP No. 1638 of 2024 (Mohit Sharma v. State of HP) accepted via office order dated 11.11.2025 of Dy. Director School Education (Elementary), Shimla; higher stage of pay in pay matrix granted after two years regular service; DDO directed to prepare arrears; petition disposed of with direction to release arrears expeditiously, preferably within four months.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to ensure that arrears in terms of the aforesaid compliance, if not already released, are released expeditiously, preferably within a period of four months. ¶14

Joginder Pal Vs State of Hp and Ors. — Himachal Pradesh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Respondents directed to ensure that arrears in terms of the aforesaid compliance, if not already released, are released expeditiously, preferably within a period of four months.

¶14

Issue for consideration

Whether the mandate contained in the order/judgment sought to be executed stands duly complied with by the respondents.

¶8

Ratio / Principle

On perusal of the compliance order taken on record, there is merit in the Additional Advocate General's contention that the mandate contained in the order/judgment sought to be executed stands duly complied with.

¶9

Key takeaways

The respondents, having considered the petitioner's case in light of the judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench in CWP No. 1638 of 2024 (Mohit Sharma vs. State of Himachal Pradesh), have granted the higher stage of pay in the concerned level of the pay matrix after completion of two years regular service, and the DDO concerned has been directed to prepare the arrears.ratio¶13
Since nothing remains to be adjudicated, the petition is disposed of with a direction that the arrears in terms of the aforesaid compliance, if not already released, be released expeditiously, preferably within a period of four months.ratio¶14

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Execution Petition No. 2228 of 2025 — Joginder Pal v. State of Himachal Pradesh & others (High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla, decided 12.11.2025, Sandeep Sharma J., oral). The Additional Advocate General placed on record an office order dated 11.11.2025 of the Dy. Director School Education (Elementary), Shimla. Perusing it, the Court held there was merit in his contention that the mandate of the order/judgment sought to be executed stood duly complied with: acting on the Co-ordinate Bench judgment in CWP No. 1638 of 2024 (Mohit Sharma vs. State of Himachal Pradesh), the respondents had granted the petitioner the higher stage of pay in the concerned level of the pay matrix after completion of two years regular service, and the DDO concerned had been directed to prepare the arrears. Nothing remaining to be adjudicated, the Execution Petition was disposed of with a direction that the arrears, if not already released, be released expeditiously, preferably within four months.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

Execution Petition No. 2228 of 2025

¶3

Date of Decision: 12.11.2025

¶4

____________ ___________________________________________ Joginder Pal …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & others … Respondents ______________________________________________________ Coram:

¶5

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?¹

¶6

For the Petitioner: Mr. C.N.Singh, Dr. Nidhi Singh and Mr. Anshul Gandhi, Advocates. For the Respondents : Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocate Generals with Mr. Ravi Chauhan and Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocate Generals.

¶7

_______________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral):

¶8

While placing on record copy of office order dated 11.11.2025, issued under the signatures of Dy. Director School Education (Elementary) Shimla, Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, states that the mandate contained in the order/judgment sought to be executed stands duly complied with.

¶9

Having perused the aforesaid order, which is taken on record, there appears to be merit in the contention of learned Additional Advocate General.

¶10

It is apparent from the bare reading of aforesaid order that respondents after having considered the case of the petitioner in light of judgment passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CWP

¶11

1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶12

¶13

No. 1638 of 2024, titled Mohit Sharma vs. State of Himachal Pradesh , has granted the higher stage of pay in the concerned level of pay matrix after completion of two years regular service and DDO concerned has been already directed to prepare the arrears.

¶14

In view of the above, nothing remains to be adjudicated in the instant petition and accordingly same is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to ensure that arrears in terms of aforesaid compliance, if not already released, shall be released expeditiously, preferably within a period of four months.

¶15

(Sandeep Sharma), Judge

¶16

November 12,2025 (shankar)

Joginder Pal v. State of Hp and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Joginder Pal v. State of Hp and Ors.

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

Kewal Krishan Vs the State of Hp and Another

Pradeep Kumar and Another Vs the State of Hp and Others

Radha Devi Vs the State of Hp and Others

Neena Rani Vs State of Hp and Ors.

Vijay Kumar Vs State of Hp and Ors.

Balbir Singh Vs the State of Hp and Others