IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Execution Petition No.11 of 2025 Date of Decision: 09.05.2025 _______________________________________________________ Kaushalya Devi …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Devender Kumar, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar & Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocate Generals, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents-State. Mr. C.N.Singh & Mr. Anshul Gandhi, Advocates, for respondent No. 2. _______________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): By way of instant Execution Petition, prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioner for implementation and execution of the order/judgment dated 26.07.2022 passed by this Court in CWP No.5976 of 2019, titled as Kaushalya Devi Vs. HIMUDA, wherein direction came to be issued to the respondents to confer work charge status to the petitioner from the due date i.e. from the date petitioner completed eight years service with 240 days in each calendar year and thereafter, her services be regularized in terms of policy framed by the Government from time to time. 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2. While passing aforesaid order/judgment, this Court having taken note of statement made by learned counsel for the petitioners before the Division Bench of this Court at the time of passing of judgment dated 22.05.2011 that in case petitioners are regularized w.e.f. 01.01.2007, they will not claim any benefit prior to 01.01.2007, held them entitled to consequential benefits on account of their being conferred work charge status and regularization w.e.f 01.01.2007. Since, despite there being specific direction to do the needful, as taken note herein above, respondents failed to comply with the judgment, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings. 3. Pursuant to notices issued in the instant proceedings, respondent No. 2 has filed reply, which is taken on record. Perusal of reply reveals that in terms of judgment passed by this Court, petitioner was granted work charge status w.e.f 01.01.2000 on completion of eight years service as daily wager with 240 days in each calendar year, vide order dated 31.07.2023. After regularization arrear on account of grant of work charge status for a period w.e.f 01.01.2007 to 31.12.2015 and 01.01.2022 to 30.04.2022 was also ordered to be released in favour of the petitioner, vide letter dated 23.11.2023. As of today, sum of Rs. 4,19,500/- has been paid to the petitioner, whereas sum of Rs. 8,78,511/- is still payable, which has been proposed to be 3 paid in installments, in terms of instructions issued by the Government of Himachal Pradesh. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that since there was specific direction to release the consequential benefits to the petitioner on account of her being conferred work charge status and regularization w.e.f 01.01.2007. Respondents could not have ordered release of arrears in installments, rather same was required to be paid in one installment. 4. Mr. C.N.Singh, learned counsel representing respondent No. 2 states that since no specific time was ever granted by the court for release of consequential benefits, coupled with the fact that Government of Himachal Pradesh has already issued instructions to release the arrears in installments, no action of respondents can be said to be in violation of mandate contained in the judgment, sought to be executed. 5. True it is that while passing impugned judgment, detail whereof has been given hereinabove, this Court has not fixed specific time frame, but since petitioners have been held entitled to consequential benefits on account of their being conferred work charge status and regularization w.e.f 01.01.2007, respondents were expected to release the amount in one installment. Approximately three years have passed after passing of the judgment, but till date only sum of Rs. 4,19,500/- has been released. 4 6. Consequently, in view of substantial compliance of judgment, sought to be executed, present petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to ensure that remaining balance of Rs.8,78,511/- is paid to the petitioner in two installments on or before 31.08.2025, 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 May 09, 2025 (sunil)