IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Execution Petition No.2579 of 2025 Date of Decision: 12.12.2025 _______________________________________________________ Dr. Amar Singh Prashar …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Reham Tullah, Advocate, vice Mr. Devender K. Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General with Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocate General, for the respondents-State. Mr. Rangil Singh, Advocate, for respondent No.3. _______________________________________________________ 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 for implementation and execution of the order/judgment dated 04.08.2025 passed by this Court in CWP No.8845 of 2023, titled as Amar Singh Prashar Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & others. 2. Careful perusal of aforesaid order/judgment, sought to be executed in the present proceedings, reveals that this Court, while allowing the writ petition filed by the petitioner, quashed and set aside 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 letter dated 31.05.2023 and directed the respondents to calculate the dearness relief of the petitioner at the rate of 28% in terms of notification dated 25.02.2022 on notional basis and thereafter, the calculated amount may taken into consideration for calculation of other retiral benefits within two weeks. 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. Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional 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 orders, sought to be executed, must have been complied with, but if not, same would be complied with within a period of three weeks from today. 4. Consequently, in view of the afore undertaking given 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, positively within a period of three weeks from today, if not already done, failing which, petitioner would be at liberty to get the present proceedings revived, so that appropriate action, in accordance with 3 law, is taken towards implementation of the judgment/ order, sought to be executed in the instant proceedings. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge December 12, 2025 (sunil)