IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Execution Petition No. 561 of 2025 Date of Decision: 3.6.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Jaipal Singh ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Anr. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioners: Mr. Yogesh Kumar Chandel, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General and Mr. Pushpender Singh Jaswal, Additional Advocate General with Mr. Sumit Sharma & Mr. Rahul Thakur, Deputy Advocates General and Mr. Rajat Chauhan, Assistant Advocate General. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) By way of present execution petition, prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioner for implementation and execution of order/judgment dated 24.12.2024, passed by coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No. 15784 of 2024, titled Jaipal Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors., whereby afore petition came to be disposed of with a direction to respondents/competent authority to consider and decide case of the petitioner afresh for grant of higher stage of pay in accordance with 2 law and in light of judgment dated 29.11.2024, rendered in CWP No. 1638 of 2024, Mohit Sharma and Anr. v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors., within a period of four weeks. Since no action, whatsoever, came to be taken at the behest of the respondents pursuant to aforesaid direction, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings. 2. Mr. Pushpender Singh Jaswal, learned Additional Advocate General, states that though he has every reason to presume and believe that by now, order/judgment sought to be executed, must have been complied with in its totality, but if not, same would be definitely complied with within a period of three weeks from today. 3. Consequently, in view of the fair stand adopted by the learned Additional Advocate General, this Court sees no reason to keep present petition alive and accordingly, same is disposed of with direction to the respondents to do the needful in terms of judgment alleged to have been violated within a period of three weeks, failing which petitioner would be at liberty to get the present petition revived so that appropriate action in accordance with law is taken towards implementation of the order/judgment. June 3, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (manjit) Judge