NISHANT SHARMA AND OTHERS v. STATE OF HP AND ANOTHER
EX.PT/72/2024 · 2026-07-01
Bipin Chander Negi, Gurmeet Singh Sandhawalia
body2024
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2024 DAILYLAW 757 (HP) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2024 DAILYLAW 757 (HP) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
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 22nd December, 2023, the respondents convened a DPC on 24th 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.
2.
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 17th October, 2023.
3.
During the course of arguments, it transpired that Laiq Ram Sharma himself has challenged the order dated 24th September, 2025, as
1Whether 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.
4.
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.
5.
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 01st July, 2026 (Tarun Singh)