Gohri Devi Vs State of Hp and Others — Himachal Pradesh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Gohri Devi Vs State of Hp and Others — Himachal Pradesh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No substantive relief granted through enforcement; execution petition disposed of and petitioner directed to avail appropriate remedy, in accordance with law, for the redressal of her surviving grievances, if any, including against the consideration order dated 20.05.2019 (Annexure E-2); pending application(s), if any, disposed of accordingly.

Issue for consideration

Whether the execution petition seeking enforcement of the operative directions of Gohri Devi v. State of H.P. & Ors. (O.A.(M) No. 727/2018) could proceed, given the petitioner's surviving grievance against the respondents' consideration order dated 20.05.2019 (Annexure E-2) under which she was not held entitled to arrears.

Court's answer

This execution petition stands disposed of; the petitioner is to avail appropriate remedy, in accordance with law, for the redressal of her surviving grievances, if any, including against the consideration order dated 20.05.2019 (Annexure E-2) passed by the respondents.

Ratio / Principle

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

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Execution Petition(T) No. 73/2026 (High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla; Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J.; decided 02.06.2026). Petitioner Gohri Devi sought enforcement of the operative directions of Gohri Devi v. State of H.P. & Ors., O.A.(M) No. 727/2018 (decided 10.10.2018), wherein the respondents/competent authority were directed to extend the benefit of the judgment referred therein to the applicant if similarly situated within three months. The petitioner's grievance pertained to the respondents' office order dated 20.05.2019 (Annexure E-2), subsequent to that decision, under which she was not held entitled to arrears; contempt proceedings COPC(T) No. 1061/2020 had been closed on 10.08.2022 with notice discharged and liberty reserved to assail the consideration order in accordance with law. In view thereof, the Court disposed of the execution petition, leaving it to the petitioner to avail appropriate remedy in accordance with law for her surviving grievances, if any, including against the consideration order dated 20.05.2019, and pending application(s), if any, also stood disposed of accordingly.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

Execution Petition(T) No. 73/2026 Decided on: 02.06.2026

Gohri Devi …..Petitioner

Versus

State of H.P. & Ors. ......Respondents ………………………………………………………………………………… Coram

Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?¹

For the petitioners: Mr. Amrit, Advocate, vice Mr. Kishore Pundeer, Advocate.

For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. L.N, Sharma, Additional Advocate General.

Jyotsna Rewal Dua , J.

Petitioner seeks enforcement of Gohri Devi Vs. State of

H.P. & Ors.² Operative directions issued in the said case are as under:

“5. In view of the above, the present original application is disposed of with a direction to the respondents/competent authority to extend the benefit of the judgment referred to above, to the applicant herein, in case she is similarly situate, within three months from today. The applicant shall produce a certified copy of this order as well as copy

2 O.A.(M) No. 727/2018 decided on 10.10.2018

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

2

of the judgment referred to above before the respondents/competent authority within a week.”

It appears that petitioner's grievance pertains to the office order passed by the respondents on 20.05.2019 (Annexure E-2), i.e., subsequent to the decision rendered in Gohri Devi² . In terms of the said order, the petitioner was not held entitled to arrears. The record also reflects that the proceedings in COPC(T) No. 1061/2020, preferred by the petitioner, were closed on 10.08.2022, with liberty reserved to the petitioner to assail the said consideration order in accordance with law. The order passed in contempt petition reads as under: -

“Sh. Kishore Pundeer, learned vice counsel for the petitioner submits that the consideration order in compliance to the judgment in question has been passed whereby the case of the petitioner has been rejected. He, therefore, prays for closing of the contempt proceedings with liberty to assail the consideration order in accordance with law.

2. In view of the submission made by learned vice counsel for the petitioner, the present contempt proceedings are closed. Notice issued to the respondent is discharged. However liberty shall be reserved to the petitioner to seek appropriate remedy in accordance with law for his surviving grievance, if any, against the consideration order. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of .”

In view of above, this execution petition to stand disposed of. It is for the petitioner to avail appropriate remedy, in accordance with law, for the redressal of her surviving grievances, if any, including against the consideration order dated 20.05.2019 (Annexure E-2)

3

passed by the respondents. Pending application(s), if any, also stand

disposed of accordingly.

Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge

02^nd June, 2026 (rohit)