Naresh Kumar Vs Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Ltd. and Another — Himachal Pradesh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Naresh Kumar Vs Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Ltd. and Another — Himachal Pradesh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Execution petition disposed of upon reported implementation of the underlying judgment and release of admissible benefits; liberty reserved to the petitioner to pursue any surviving grievances through appropriate legal remedy; consequent-promotion benefits stated to be finalized within six weeks.

Issue for consideration

Whether the judgment under execution has been implemented in letter and spirit, with admissible benefits released, so as to permit disposal of the execution petition. +1 more

Court's answer

In view of the documents on record and the submissions made for respondent No.1, this execution petition stands disposed of.

Ratio / Principle

Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to seek appropriate remedy for the redressal of his surviving grievances, if any, in accordance with law.

Key takeaways

Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.ratio¶25

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Execution Petition (Ex. Pet (T) No.26 of 2026), High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla, decided 03.07.2026 by Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J. — Naresh Kumar v. HPSEBL. The execution petition sought implementation of an earlier judgment (not identified by case number) in which, per para 14, the petitioner was held entitled to appointment with all consequential benefits. By interim order dated 17.06.2026, the court upheld the petitioner's grievance that benefits had been released only on notional basis and granted respondent No.1 one but final opportunity of two weeks to implement the judgment in letter and spirit, failing which respondent No.1 was to remain personally present. At the hearing on 03.07.2026, counsel for respondent No.1 placed on record office letter dated 27.06.2026 (earlier compliance affidavit having recorded implementation vide office letter dated 06.06.2026), submitting that admissible benefits stood released and consequent-promotion benefits would be finalized within six weeks. The court disposed of the execution petition, reserved liberty to the petitioner to seek appropriate remedy for surviving grievances in accordance with law, and disposed of pending miscellaneous applications. No statutory provisions or precedents were cited; respondent No.2 stood deleted.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA

Ex. Pet (T) No.26 of 2026 Decided on: 03.07.2026

_________________________________________________________________ Naresh Kumar ....Petitioner

Versus

HPSEBL and Anr. …Respondents ________________________________________________________________ Coram_

Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua

1 Whether approved for reporting?

________________________ For the petitioner:	_________________________________ Mr. Arvind Negi, Advocate Jyoti Sharma, Advocate.	________ vice Ms.
For the respondents:	Ms. Sunita Sharma, Sr. with Mr. Dhananjay Advocate foe respondent No	Advocate Sharma, .1.
	Respondent No.2 stands del	eted.

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge

Following order was passed in the matter on

17.06.2026:-

“Learned Senior Counsel for respondent No.1 submits that cost in terms of the previous order has been paid to the petitioner.

Respondent No.1 is stated to have filed the compliance affidavit. It be placed in the case file, if in

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

2 -

order. A copy thereof was made available for perusal. In terms of the compliance affidavit, the judgment in question has been implemented by issuing office letter dated 06.06.2026.

Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner makes out a grievance and rightly so that the respondents were not justified in ordering release of benefits to the petitioner on notional basis. In terms of para 14 of the judgment, the petitioner has been held entitled for appointment alongwith all consequential benefits.

Confronted with above, at the request of learned Senior Counsel for respondent No.1, one but final opportunity of two weeks is granted to implement the udgment in letter and spirit, failing which respondent No.1 shall remain present in the Court on the next date.

List on 03.07.2026.”

2. Pursuant to above, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 has placed on record office letter dated 27.06.2026 alongwith compendium of documents and on that basis submits that the judgment in question now stands implemented and admissible benefits have been released in favour of the petitioner; That some benefits relating to consequent promotion of the petitioner are being processed. The same shall also be finalized within six weeks.

3. In view of the documents on record and the submissions made for the respondent No.1, this execution

3 -

petition to stand disposed of. Liberty, however, is reserved to the petitioner to seek appropriate remedy for the redressal of

his surviving grievances, if any, in accordance with law.

Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also

stand disposed of.

Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge

July 03, 2026 R.Atal