Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Himachal Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 10482 (HP)

CHAMAN LAL v. STATE OF HP AND OTHERS

EX.P./337/2025 · 2025-09-01

Ajay Mohan Goel

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

2025:HHC:29618 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Exe. Pet. No. 337 of 2025 Decided on: 01.09.2025 Chaman Lal … Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and another … Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 _____________________________________________________ For the petitioner : Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sparsh Bhushan, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Pushpender Jaswal, Additional Advocate General. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this petition, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking execution of the judgment passed by this Court, in terms whereof, the suspension order passed by the Authority was quashed by the Court by holding that the same is bad. The suspension order is dated 22.02.2024 and the same was quashed vide judgment dated 23.05.2024. 2. In terms of the documents appended with compliance affidavit, the order dated 17.07.2025 is to the effect that the authorities have held that the period of suspension stands regularized for all intents and purposes. 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:29618 3. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that despite issuance of abovesaid order, till date, the difference of pay as from the date of suspension till the date of revocation of the suspension has not been paid to the petitioner. 4. This Court is of the considered view that once the suspension has been regularized, the period of suspension has to be treated as the period of regular service by the petitioner for all intents and purposes. Therefore, these proceedings are disposed of with the direction that the difference of pay as from the date of suspension, till the date the same was revoked by the Authorities, be paid to the petitioner within a period of six weeks from today. In case, the needful is not done within six weeks, then the petitioner can approach the Court by way of an application for revival of these proceedings (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge September 01, 2025 (narender)