IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Execution Petition No.879 of 2025 Date of Decision: 21.07.2025 _______________________________________________________ Anil Sharma …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. … Respondent s Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Rakesh Kumar Dogra, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocate Generals with 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 for implementation and execution of the order/judgment dated 13.09.2022 passed by this Court in CWP No.7289 of 2021, titled as Anil Sharma Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & others, whereby this Court, while allowing of the writ petition filed by the petitioner, quashed and set aside orders dated 10.09.2021, 22.08.2020 and 09.06.2020 with further direction to the respondents to reinstate the petitioner from due date with all consequential benefits. Though in terms of afore directions, petitioner has been 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 reinstated, but it has been claimed at the behest of the petitioner that entire consequential benefits have not been released. 2. Mr. B.C.Verma, learned Additional Advocate General, while accepting notice on behalf of the respondents, specifically invited attention of this Court to averments contained in the petition as well as Annexure P-2 to state that petitioner has been reinstated with all consequential benefits and at present nothing remains to be paid to him. He further states that petitioner is claiming something, which was never granted in his favour. 3. To the contrary, Mr. Rakesh Kumar Dogra, learned counsel for the petitioner, states that petitioner herein is entitled to extra salary on account of overtime. Since judgment, sought to be executed, stands complied with substantially, relief otherwise claimed through instant petition has not been granted by this Court, there appears to be no reason to issue notice to the respondents in the instant proceedings. Since petitioner has been reinstated with all consequential benefits, no action of the respondents can be said to be contumacious. 4. In view of the above, present petition is disposed of as having been rendered infructuous reserving liberty to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings in appropriate Court of law qua the 3 surviving grievance, if any. Needless to say, representation, if any, filed by the petitioner for redressal of his grievance, as has been set- out in the petition, same shall be disposed of expeditiously. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge July 21, 2025 (sunil)