( 2025:HHC:32052 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Execution Petition No.79 of 2025 Date of Decision: 16.09.2025 ____________________________________________________ Mehar Chand ....Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others …Respondents _____________________________________________________ Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the petitioner: Ms. Babita, Advocate for Mr.A.K Gupta, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Rakesh Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General for respondents No.1 and 2. Mr. Vinod Chauhan, Advocate, for respondent No.3. G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice (Oral) Compliance is sought of the order passed on 16.11.2017 in T.A. No. 4878 of 2015 titled Mehar Chand vs. State of H.P and others by the erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, whereby directions were given to regularize the services of the applicant on completion of 8 years with all consequential benefits. 2. It is a matter of record that the State had challenged 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 the said order by filing CWP No.590 of 2018 titled State of H.P and others vs. Mehar Chand, in which no stay was granted on 27.06.2018 (Annexure R-2). 3. Eventually, the matter was decided on 12.01.2023 with a bunch of cases, lead case being LPA No.165 of 2021 titled State of H.P and others vs. Surajmani and another alongwith connected matters. 4. The matter was thereafter taken to the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.1595 of 2025 titled The State of Himachal Pradesh & Others Vs. Surajmani & another, which was decided on 06.02.2025. 5. As per communication dated 02.07.2025, now placed on record, by the State, the petition had wrongly been clubbed as such with Surajmani’s case, since regularization had been ordered, whereas, apparently the issue before the Supreme Court and this Court in Surajmani’s Case was regarding the work charge status of the employee after 8 years of service. However, the communication also shows that nothing is to be done in the case as the directions issued by this Court on 27.06.2018 have already been complied with. Thus once the petitioner has been granted the benefit of regularization also, no further orders are required to 3 be passed keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. 6. In view of the above, the present petition stands disposed of alongwith pending applications, if any. ( G.S. Sandhawalia ) Chief Justice 16th September, 2025 ( Ranjan Sharma ) (priti) Judge