IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Execution Petition No. 2294 of 2025 Date of Decision: 18.11.2025 _______________________________________________________ Gopal Dass …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & another … Respondents ______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Ms. Babita Chauhan, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol and Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocate Generals with Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent-State. _______________________________________________________ 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 23.06.2025 passed by this Court in CWP No. 5663 of 2025, titled Gopal Dass vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and another. 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 office of Engineer-in-Chief, HPPWD, Shimla to ensure that request made by the petitioner, who is otherwise employee of HPPWD, if not already considered, is considered expeditiously for allotment of government accommodation, preferably within four weeks and in case, petitioner is found entitled, 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 Government accommodation be provided to him in accordance with the rules occupying the field. 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. Ravi Chauhan, learned Deputy Advocate General, while accepting notice on behalf of the respondents, 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 two 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 terms of order/judgment dated 23.06.2025 passed by this Court, positively within a period of two 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 November 18,2025 (shankar)