IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Execution Petition (T) No. 145 of 2025 Date of Decision: 02.09.2025 _______________________________________________________ Vijay Kumar …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & others … Respondents ______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Mukul Sood, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C.Verma, Additional Advocate Generals and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Mr. Rangil Singh, Advocate, for respondent No.3. _______________________________________________________ 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 23.11.2021 passed by this Court in CWPOA No.5937 of 2019, titled Vijay Kumar vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others. 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 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 grant all pensionary benefits alongwith arrears of pension to the petitioner, if otherwise found eligible forthwith. The recovery amount, if any, deducted from GPF of the petitioner, on account of interest etc. on GPF accumulations may also be refunded to the petitioner within a period of three months. Since, despite there being specific direction to do the needful, as taken note 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-State, 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 three 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 3 terms of order/judgment dated 23.11.2021 passed by this Court, positively within a period of three 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 September 02,2025 (shankar)