IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Execution Petition No.61 of 2025 Date of Decision: 05.05.2025 _______________________________________________________ Mahesh Sen …….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. Rajesh Verma, 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. _______________________________________________________ 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 18.07.2017 passed by erstwhile H.P. Administrative Tribunal in T.A. No.940 of 2016, titled as Mahesh Sen vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, whereby direction came to be issued to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner in view of principles laid down in judgment dated 31.07.2014 passed by this Court in CWP No. No.2415 of 2012, titled Mathu Ram vs. Municipal Corporation and others, within a period of two months. Since needful never came to be done at the behest of the respondents, 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 petitioner approached this Court by way of CWP No. 9927 of 2024, but same was disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to file execution petition, if so advised. In afore background, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings. 2. Before notices in the instant proceedings could be issued, Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, while putting appearance on behalf of the respondents, made available communication dated 7.12.2024, enclosing therewith copy of office order dated 15.03.2018, to state that mandate contained in the order sought to be executed has been already complied with. 3. Having perused aforesaid communication as well as office order, as detailed hereinabove, which are taken on record, this Court finds that respondents after having considered the case of the petitioner in light of judgment passed in Mathu Ram case(supra), has rejected the representation of the petitioner on the ground that work charge establishment has ceased to exist in the department w.e.f. 01.04.2004. Since there was only positive direction to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner in light of Mathu Ram’s case (supra)and respondents after having considered the case of the petitioner, has already passed the order, nothing remains to be adjudicated in the instant proceedings and accordingly same are closed, reserving liberty to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings in appropriate Court of law, laying therein challenge to order passed by the respondents in purported compliance of the 3 mandate contained in the judgment/order sought to be executed, if so advised. Pending application, if any, also stand disposed of. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge May 05,2025 (shankar)