Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Himachal Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 27311 (HP)

RAKESH THAKUR v. GOVT. OF HP AND ORS

EX.PT/296/2024 · 2025-07-18

Sandeep Sharma

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Execution Petition No. 296 of 2024 Date of Decision: 18.7.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Rakesh Thakur ……...Petitioner Versus Government of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. P.D. Nanda, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol and Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) While placing on record communication dated 17.7.2025, issued under the signature of Additional Director, Rural Development Department, Himachal Pradesh, Mr. B. C. Verma, learned Additional Advocate General, states that mandate contained in the judgment sought to be executed has been duly complied with in its letter and spirit. He states that objection taken by learned counsel for the petitioner on 9.7.2025 with regard to words “on notional basis” has been taken note of and as such, vide corrigendum dated 11.7.2025 (Annexure R-2) afore words have been 2 ordered to be deleted from para 6 of office order dated 8.7.2025 (Annexure R-1). He further states that pursuant to deletion of afore words “on notional basis”, pay of the petitioner has also been fixed as per office order dated 17.7.2025 (Annexure R-3). 2. Having perused aforesaid communication as well as documents annexed therewith, this court is convinced and satisfied that mandate contained in the judgment sought to be executed stands duly complied with and as such, nothing remains to be adjudicated in the instant proceedings accordingly, same are closed. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings before appropriate court of law qua surviving grievance, if any. Needless to say, consequential benefits, if any, arising from the aforesaid compliance, if not already released, be released expeditiously, preferably, within four months. July 18, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (manjit) Judge