IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Execution Petition No. 193 of 2025 Date of Decision: 7.11.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Kaushalya Devi ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and another …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Devender Kumar, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, Mr. Rajan Kahol and Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General with Mr. Ravi Chauhan and Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General, for respondent No.1. Mr. C.N. Singh, Advocate, for respondent No.2. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) By way of present execution petition, prayer has been made by the petitioner for implementation and execution of order/judgment dated 26.7.2022, passed by this Court in CWP No.5976 of 2019, titled Kaushalya Devi v. HIMUDA and Ors., whereby afore petition came to be disposed of with a direction to respondents/competent authority to confer work charge status to the petitioner from the due date. Since no action, whatsoever, came to be taken at the behest of the respondents pursuant to aforesaid 2 direction, petitioner filed Execution Petition No. 11 of 2025, which was also disposed of with direction to the respondents to ensure that remaining balance of Rs. 8,78,511/- shall be paid to the petitioner in two installments on or before 31.8.2025. Since needful has not been done by the respondents, petitioner is compelled to approach this Court in the instant proceedings. 2. Learned counsel appearing for 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 one week from today. 3. Consequently, in view of the fair stand adopted by learned counsel for the respondents, 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 alleged to have been violated within a period of one week, failing which petitioner would be at liberty to get the present petition revived so that appropriate action in accordance with law is taken towards implementation of the order/judgment. November 7, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (manjit) Judge