IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Execution Petition No.2003 of 2025 Date of Decision: 29.10.2025 _______________________________________________________ Amitesh Singh …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Yogesh Kumar Chandel, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General with Mr. Ravi Chauhan & Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General. _______________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): Though by way of instant Execution Petition, prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioner for implementation and execution of the order/judgment dated 16.05.2025 passed by this Court in CWP No.2731 of 2025, titled as Amitesh Singh Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and another., whereby direction was issued to the respondents to consider and decide the case of the petitioner in light of judgment rendered by Coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No.1638 of 2024, titled as Mohit Shama & Anr. Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors., but learned counsel for the petitioner, states that mandate contained in the judgment, sought to be executed, stands complied with. He states that though petitioner 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 herein has been granted higher stage of pay of Rs.33,400/-, but actual consequential benefits are yet to be released. 2. Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General, while putting in appearance on behalf of the respondents, fairly states that consequential benefits, in terms of aforesaid compliance, if not already released, shall be released expeditiously, preferably within three months. 3. In view of the above, nothing remains to be adjudicated in the instant petition and accordingly, the same is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to release the consequential benefits to the petitioner, if not already released. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to get the present petition revived in case consequential benefits, as ordered to be released within the stipulated time, are not released, enabling this Court to pass appropriate orders towards execution and implementation of the judgment/ order, sought to be executed in the instant proceedings. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge October 29, 2025 (sunil)