IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Execution Petition No. 74 of 2025 Date of Decision: 04.06.2025 _______________________________________________________ Rakesh Kumar Rajput …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and another … Respondents ______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Aakash Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, Mr. Raj Pal Thakur, Additional Advocate Generals, Mr. Sumit Sharma, Mr. Rahul Thakur, Deputy Advocate Generals with Mr. Rajat Chauhan, Law Officer, for the respondent/ State. _______________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): By way of instant Execution Petition, prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioner for issuance of directions to the respondents to implement/ execute the order/judgment dated 15.03.2024, passed by Co- ordinate Bench of this Court in CWPOA No. 4617 of 2019, titled Rakesh Kumar Rajput vs. State of Himachal Pradesh. 2. Careful perusal of aforesaid order/judgment, sought to be executed in the instant proceedings, reveals that Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, while allowing the petition, held petitioner entitled to the last pay drawn by him at the time his services were taken over by the respondent- Department as a measure personal to him as has also been done by the respondents-Department in the case of similarly situated persons in terms 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 of office order dated 07.09.2012 and 21.07.2012. The respondents were further directed to do the needful within a period of 90 days. Since, despite there being specific direction to do the needful, as taken note hereinabove, respondents have failed to do so, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings. 3. Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, learned Additional Advocate General, while accepting notice on behalf of the respondents, states that though he has every reason to believe and presume that by now aforesaid judgment/ order must have been complied with, but if not, same would be complied with within a period of three weeks from today. 4. Consequently, in view of the fair statement made by learned Additional Advocate General, this Court sees no reason to keep the present petition alive and as such, same is accordingly disposed of with the direction to the respondents to do the needful in terms of order/judgment dated 15.03.2024 passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, positively within a period of three weeks, if not already done, failing which, petitioner would be at liberty to get the present proceedings revived, so that appropriate action, in accordance with law, is taken towards implementation of the judgment/ order, sought to be executed in the instant proceedings. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge June 04,2025s (shankar)