Nishant Sharma and Others Vs State of Hp and Another — Himachal Pradesh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Nishant Sharma and Others Vs State of Hp and Another — Himachal Pradesh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Liberty to file a writ petition challenging the order dated 24th September, 2025 (Annexure R-2/4); pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also disposed of.

Issue for consideration

Whether the correctness of the pay fixation made after the DPC of 24.09.2025 (Grade Pay fixed at Rs.8,000/- instead of the contended Rs.9,000/-) can be adjudicated by the executing Court, given that the order under execution was only for consideration of the case. +1 more

Court's answer

Since the order under execution was only for consideration of the case and the consideration has been done, whether rightly or wrongly, adjudicating the correctness of the pay fixation would not be within the ambit of the executing Court.

Ratio / Principle

Permission granted to the petitioner to file a writ petition challenging the order dated 24th September, 2025.

Key takeaways

The execution petition is disposed of with the aforesaid liberty, so also the pending miscellaneous applications, if any.ratio¶19

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Execution Petition No. 72 of 2024, High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla (decided 01.07.2026) — Nishant Sharma and others v. State of H.P. and another. In pursuance of the respondents' order dated 22nd December, 2023, a DPC was convened on 24th September, 2025 and an order of even date (Annexure R-2/4) fixed the petitioner's revised pay at Grade Pay Rs.8,000/- instead of the contended Rs.9,000/-, the consideration having been undertaken in terms of the judgment in Civil Writ Petition No. 7526 of 2019 (Laiq Ram Sharma and others v. State of H.P., dated 17th October, 2023). The Court held that since the order under execution was only for consideration of the case and the consideration has been done, whether rightly or wrongly, adjudication of its correctness would not be within the ambit of the executing Court. Permission was granted to file a writ petition challenging the order dated 24.09.2025, and the execution petition was disposed of with that liberty, together with pending miscellaneous applications, if any. Coram: G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice (author) and Bipin Chander Negi, Judge.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

Execution Petition No. 72 of 2024 Decided on : 01.07.2026

Nishant Sharma and others …..Petitioner

Versus

State of H.P. and another …Respondents. Coram

Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice.

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?¹

For the petitioner : Mr. Vikas Rajput, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Gobind Korla, Additional Advocate General, for the respondents/State.

G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice (Oral)

Admittedly, in pursuance of the order dated 22^nd December, 2023, the respondents convened a DPC on 24^th September, 2025, and thereafter passed another order of the even date (Annexure R-2/4), whereby the revised pay of the petitioner has been fixed.

The grouse of the petitioner is that the Grade Pay has been fixed at Rs.8,000/- whereas, it should have been Rs.9,000/-. The reasons have been given in the proceedings of the DPC (Annexure R-2/3). The consideration was to be done in terms of the judgment passed in Civil Writ Petition No. 7526 of 2019 , titled Laiq Ram Sharma and others vs. State of H.P., dated 17^th October, 2023.

During the course of arguments, it transpired that Laiq Ram Sharma himself has challenged the order dated 24^th September, 2025, as

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

-2-

apparently, though the matter had gone up to the Apex Court, he has still been granted Grade Pay of Rs.8,000/- in the said order.

Keeping in view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that the consideration has been done, whether rightly or wrongly, and it would not be within the ambit of the executing Court as such, since the order was only for consideration of the case.

Faced with this situation, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he may be permitted to file a writ petition challenging the said order. Permission granted.

Accordingly, the petition is disposed of with the aforesaid liberty, so also, the pending miscellaneous applications if any.

(G.S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice

(Bipin Chander Negi) Judge

01^st July, 2026 (Tarun Singh)