IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Execution Petition No.2111 of 2025 Date of Decision: 11.11.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Sh. Chungal Ram ……...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. C.N. Singh, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Additional Advocate General, for State. Mr. Tara Chand Chauhan, Advocate, for respondent No.5. ___________________________________________________________________________ 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 06.05.2025, passed by this Court in CWP No.1465 of 2024, whereby this Court passed the following order: “3. Consequently, in view of the above, present petition is disposed of, with the direction to respondents to give him option within a period of four weeks and thereafter necessary steps shall be taken by the respondents to ensure release of pension as well as other retiral benefits within a period of three weeks. Needless to say, after receipt of pension case of the petitioner, respondent No.5 shall ensure issuance of PPO in favour of the petitioner, expeditiously, preferably, within a period of four weeks. ” 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 and Mr. Tara Chand Chauhan, Advocate, while putting in appearance on behalf of the respondents, state that though they have 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 and learned counsel representing the respondent No.5, 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 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 11, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (Rajeev Raturi) Judge