IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Execution Petition No.2580 of 2025 Date of Decision: 12.12.2025 _______________________________________________________ Deep Chand …….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. _______________________________________________________ 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 01.07.2025 passed by this Court in CWP No.5059 of 2022, titled as Deep Chand Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. 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, directed the respondents to treat the petitioner, as having been regularized on actual basis with effect from dates of his regularization. This Court further directed the respondents to release the consequential benefits 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 in favour of the petitioner flowing from his actual date of regularization be worked out. 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 law, is taken towards implementation of the judgment/ order, sought to be executed in the instant proceedings. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge December 12, 2025 (sunil)