IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Execution Petition No.157 of 2025 Date of Decision: 17.09.2025 _______________________________________________________ Dr. Kartar Singh Negi …….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. S.P.Chatterji, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar & Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General 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 petitioners for execution and implementation of judgment dated 28.06.2021, passed by this Court in CWP No.1205 of 2020, whereby this Court passed the following order:- “5. In summa, the writ reliefs are allowed, and, the impugned notifications are quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to make additions of non practicing allowances, upon, the salaries/pension received by the writ petitioner, and, appertaining to the period commencing from 1.9.1997, and, thereafter they are directed to make recalculations or revise the pension or family 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 pension, vis-à-vis, the writ petitioner. Moreover, the all apposite arrears shall be liquidated to the writ petitioner, within a period of four months from today, and, any failure on the part of the respondents to do so, shall cause entailment, upon all the monetary benefits accurable to the petitioners, hence levying thereon(s) of simple interest at the rate of 6% commencing from today. All pending applications also stand disposed of.” 2. 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. 3. Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, while putting in appearance on behalf of 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 two weeks from today. 4. Consequently, in view of fair stand adopted by the learned 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 sought to be executed, within a period of two weeks, failing which petitioners would be at liberty to get the present petition revived so 3 that appropriate action in accordance with law is taken towards the implementation of the order/judgment. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge September 17, 2025 (sunil)