IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Execution Petition No. 1157 of 2025 Date of Decision: 20.8.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Jagdish Chand ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Aashish Verma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) By way of present execution petition, prayer has been made by the petitioner for implementation and execution of order/judgment dated 4.6.2025, passed by this Court in CWP No.8517 of 2024, titled Jagdish Chand v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors.., whereby afore petition came to be disposed of with a direction to respondents/competent authority to fix pay of the petitioner after his being conferred work charge status and taking into consideration services rendered by him on work charge basis prior to regularization in terms of judgment passed in CWP No. 6167 of 2 2017, titled as Sukru Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. and Judgment passed by Full Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court in Keshar Chand v. State of Punjab through the Secretary PWD B&R Chandigarh and Ors. (1988) 94(2) PLR 223, 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. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for the respondents, 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 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. August 20, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (manjit) Judge