IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Execution Petition No. 756 of 2025 Date of Decision: 26.06.2025 _______________________________________________________ Kuldeep Sharma …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others … Respondents ______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Yogesh Kumar Chandel, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol and Mr. B.C.Verma, Additional Advocate Generals and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. _______________________________________________________ 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 28.04.2025, passed by this Court in CWP No. 6687 of 2025, titled Kuldeep Sharma vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others. 2. Careful perusal of aforesaid order/judgment, sought to be executed in the instant proceedings, reveals that this Court, while disposing of the petition, directed the respondents to release the higher stage of pay of Rs. 40,100/- to the petitioner w.e.f. his completing two years of regular service as Shastri. Since, despite there being specific direction to do the needful, as taken note 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 hereinabove, respondents have failed to do so, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings. 3. Mr. B.C.Verma, 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 four 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 28.04.2025 passed by this Court, positively within a period of four 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 26,2025 (shankar)