Mahesh Raj v. State of Hp and Anr.

Himachal Pradesh HC17 Nov 2025EX.P./2264/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Himachal Pradesh High Court, Shimla; Execution Petition No.2264 of 2025; Mahesh Raj v. State of H.P. & Ors.; Justice Sandeep Sharma; decided 17.11.2025; execution/compliance of CWP No.1638 of 2024 (Mohit Sharma); higher pay scale on completion of two years regular service; DDO directed to fix pay and release arrears; subject to Finance Department verification and outcome of Mohit Sharma litigation; petition disposed of; release of financial benefits directed within three months.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the respondents to ensure that the financial benefits flowing from the recorded compliance (higher pay scale on completion of two years regular service, with arrears), if not already released, are released to the petitioner within three months. ¶¶19

Mahesh Raj Vs State of Hp and Anr. — Himachal Pradesh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶19

Issue for consideration

Whether the mandate contained in the judgment in CWP No. 1638 of 2024 (Mohit Sharma), sought to be executed, has been complied with by the respondents, such that anything remains to be adjudicated in this Execution Petition.

¶¶14

Court's answer

The Court, having perused the compliance documents (communication dated 07.11.2025 of Director, School Education enclosing office order dated 29.09.2025 of Dy. Director of School Education (Ele.) Chamba), found merit in the Deputy Advocate General's contention: respondents, considering the petitioner's case in light of the Coordinate Bench judgment in CWP No. 1638 of 2024 (Mohit Sharma), have granted him the benefit of higher pay scale on completion of two years regular service, the DDO has been directed to fix the petitioner's pay and release the arrears, subject to verification of his service as per Finance Department instructions and subject to the final outcome of the legal remedy in Mohit Sharma (supra).

¶¶18

Ratio / Principle

Since compliance with the judgment under execution stands recorded, nothing remained to be adjudicated in the Execution Petition, which was accordingly disposed of with a direction to the respondents to ensure that the financial benefits flowing from the compliance, if not already released, are released to the petitioner within three months.

¶¶19

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Execution Petition No.2264 of 2025 (Mahesh Raj v. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors.), decided 17.11.2025 by Sandeep Sharma, J. (oral): The Deputy Advocate General placed on record a communication dated 07.11.2025 of the Director, School Education, Himachal Pradesh, enclosing an office order dated 29.09.2025 of the Dy. Director of School Education (Ele.), Chamba, stating that the mandate of the judgment under execution stood complied with. On perusal, the Court recorded that the respondents, after considering the petitioner's case in light of the judgment of a Coordinate Bench in CWP No. 1638 of 2024 (Mohit Sharma & Anr. v. State of H.P. & Ors.), had granted the petitioner the benefit of higher pay scale on completion of two years regular service; the DDO was directed to fix his pay and release arrears, subject to verification of service as per Finance Department instructions and subject to the final outcome of the legal remedy in Mohit Sharma (supra). Nothing remained to be adjudicated; the petition was disposed of with a direction that financial benefits flowing from the compliance, if not already released, be released to the petitioner within three months.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

Execution Petition No.2264 of 2025 Date of Decision: 17.11.2025

¶3

_______________________________________________________ Mahesh Raj

¶4

…….Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors.

¶7

… Respondents

¶8

Coram:

¶9

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

¶10

For the Petitioner: Ms. Mamta Garg, Advocate.

¶11

For the Respondents : Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General with Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocate General.

¶12

_______________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral):

¶13

While placing on record communication dated

¶14

07.11.2025, issued under the signatures of Director, School Education, Himachal Pradesh, enclosing therewith office order dated 29.09.2025 passed by Dy. Director of School Education (Ele.) Chamba, District Chamba, Himachal Pradesh, Mr. Anish Banshtu, learned Deputy Advocate General, states that mandate contained in the judgment, sought to be executed, stands complied with.

¶15

2. Having carefully perused aforesaid documents, which are taken on record, this Court finds merit in the contention of learned

¶16

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

¶17

¶18

Deputy Advocate General. Respondents, after having considered the case of the petitioner in light of judgment passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No. 1638 of 2024, titled as Mohit Sharma & Anr. Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. , have granted him benefit of higher pay scale on completion of two years regular service and in that regard, DDO has already been directed to fix the pay of the petitioner and release the arrear subject to verification of his service as per Finance Department instructions issued from time to time subject to final outcome of the legal remedy in Mohit Sharma (supra).

¶19

3. In view of the above, nothing remains to be adjudicated in the instant petition and accordingly, the same is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to ensure that financial benefits flowing from the aforesaid compliance, if not already released, are released to the petitioner within three months from today.

¶20

(Sandeep Sharma), Judge

¶21

November 17, 2025 (sunil)

Mahesh Raj v. State of Hp and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahesh Raj v. State of Hp and Anr.

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

Rana Singh Vs the State of Hp and Others

Inder Pal and Another Vs the State of Hp and Others

Poonam Kumari and Others Vs the State of Hp and Others

Jagar Nath and Another Vs the State of Hp and Others

Devender Kumar Vs the UOI and Another

Shammi Kumar Vs the State of Hp and Another