Disposed

Mohd. Islam v. the State of Hp and Others

Himachal Pradesh HC17 Sept 2026EX.P./1146/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of an execution petition after finding that the original writ petition direction to consider the petitioner's claim in light of the Supreme Court's Sunder Singh judgment had been complied with. The Divisional Forest Officer had rejected the claim based on eligibility criteria in government instructions dated 14.02.2019. The court held nothing remained to be adjudicated in the execution petition and closed it, granting the petitioner liberty to challenge the office order through appropriate legal remedies.

What did the court decide?

Execution petition disposed of; petitioner granted liberty to challenge the office order dated 19.08.2026 through appropriate legal remedies.

Mohd. Islam Vs the State of Hp and Others — Service and Employment | Himachal Pradesh HC (2026)

¶1

2026:HHC:39794

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Execution Petition No.1146 of 2026 Decided on: 17th September, 2026

¶3

___________________________________________________________________ Mohd. Islam ....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. Bonit Prakash, Advocate vice Mr. A.K. Gupta, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Amandeep Sharma, Additional Advocate General, for respondents No.1 to 3-State. Ms. Rangil Singh, Advocate, for respondent No.4.

¶4

Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge (Oral)

¶5

Learned Additional Advocate General has produced a communication dated 03.09.2026, office order dated 19.08.2026, passed by the Divisional Forest Officer, Nahan Forest Division, Nahan, H.P. and copy of instructions dated 14.02.2019, passed by the Secretary (Finance) to the Government of

¶6

Himachal Pradesh, which are taken on record.

¶7

1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶8

¶9

A perusal of the office order dated 19.08.2026

¶10

reveals that the case of the petitioner was considered and as

¶11

the service credentials of the petitioner do not match or satisfy the eligibility criteria outlined in Government instructions dated 14.02.2019, his claim for counting/benefiting the disputed two years of daily wage service was rejected.

¶12

This Court while disposing of the writ petition on

¶13

27.11.2025, passed in CWP No.18317 of 2025, titled, Mohd.

¶14

Islam vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others , had only given a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the case

¶15

of the petitioner in light of the decision passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.6309 of 2017, titled, Sunder Singh

¶16

vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others.

¶17

Since the mandate contained in the judgment

¶18

sought to be executed has been complied with, nothing remains to be adjudicated in the present execution petition and the same is closed. However, the petitioner is at liberty to avail appropriate remedy to assail the office order dated 19.08.2026, passed by the Divisional Forest Officer, Nahan Forest Division,

¶19

¶20

Nahan, H.P., in accordance with law.

¶21

The petition is accordingly disposed of. Pending

¶22

application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

¶23

17th September, 2026 ( Jiya Lal Bhardwaj ) (ankit) Judge

Mohd. Islam v. the State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd. Islam v. the State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases