IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Execution Petition No.2299 of 2025 Date of Decision: 20.11.2025 __________________________________________________________________ Pankaj ……...Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and Others …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Vinod Chauhan, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General. __________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) By way of instant execution petition, prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioner for execution and implementation of judgment dated 22.08.2025, passed by this Court in CWP No.13468 of 2025, whereby this Court passed the following order: “4. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of without making any comments on the merits of the case of the petitioner. It is directed that respondents shall consider the case of the petitioner in light of judgment passed by this Court in CWP No. 1638 of 2024, titled as Mohit Sharma & Anr. vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors, on 29.11.2024, within eight weeks from today by passing a speaking order. In case, the petitioner is found similarly situated as petitioners in CWP No. 1638 of 2024, titled as Mohit Sharma & Anr. vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors, on 29.11.2024, he shall also be granted the same benefits as granted to petitioners in above referred case.” 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. 2 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 three 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 three weeks, failing which petitioner would be at liberty to get the present petition revived so that appropriate action in accordance with law is taken towards the implementation of the order/judgment. November 20, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (Rajeev Raturi) Judge