IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Execution Petition (T) No.273 of 2024 Date of Decision: 25.7.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Naresh Kumar and Ors. ……...Petitioners Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioners: Mr. Mandeep Chandel, Advocate. For the Respondents: Ms. Sharmila Patial, Additional Advocate General, for respondents No.1 to 4. Mr. Tara Chand Chauhan, Advocate, for respondent No.5. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) While placing on record communication dated 23.7.2025, issued under the signature of Director of School Education, Himachal Pradesh Shimla, learned Additional Advocate General states that mandate contained in the judgment sought to be executed, stands duly complied with. 2. Having perused afore communication as well as copy of office order dated 18.7.2025 annexed with aforesaid communication, which is 2 taken on record, this Court finds that in terms of mandate contained in the judgment sought to be executed, respondents, after having considered case of the petitioners in light of judgments passed in CWP No. 2411 of 2019, titled as Jagdish Chand v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors., CWPOA No. 3477 of 2020, titled as Smt. Prabha Kanwar through her legal Heirs v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. and CWPOA No. 195 of 2019, titled as Sheela Devi v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors., have rejected case of the petitioners. 3. Mr. Mandeep Chandel, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, while referring to order passed in purported compliance though attempted to argue that compliance is not in conformity with the directions contained in the judgment sought to be executed, but we are not persuaded to agree with aforesaid submission of Mr. Chandel, for the reason that only direction was to consider the case of the petitioners in light of aforesaid judgments, which, in the case at hand, has been done by the respondents. Otherwise also, execution proceedings are only meant to ensure compliance of the judgment sought to be executed. Correctness, if any, of the order passed in purported compliance of judgment sought to be executed can only be ascertained in substantive petition, if any, filed. 4. Consequently, in view of the above, this Court sees no reason to keep the present petition alive and accordingly, same is disposed of being 3 fully satisfied, however liberty is reserved to the petitioners to file appropriate proceedings before appropriate court of law qua surviving grievance, if any. (Sandeep Sharma) Judge July 25, 2024 (Ranjan Sharma) (manjit) Judge