IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Execution Petition No. 1703 of 2025 Date of Decision: 14.11.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Laxmi Singh Verma ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Anr. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Vinay Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, Mr. Rajan Kahol and Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General with Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocate General, for respondent No.1. Ms. Neelam Kaplas, Advocate, for respondent No.2. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) While placing on record communication dated 24.10.2025, issued under the signature of Drawing & Disbursing Officer, Himachal Pradesh Board of School Education, Dharamshala, Ms. Neelam Kaplas, Advocate, appearing for respondent-Board, states that in terms of mandate contained in the judgment alleged to have been violated, sum of Rs. 5,49,967/- has been released in favour of the petitioner on account of arrears w.e.f. 3.9.1997 to 31.12.2015. 2 2. Though factum with regard to release of aforesaid amount for the aforesaid period has been fairly admitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, on instructions, of the petitioner, who is also present in the court, but he states that arrears with regard to years 2018 till 2022 have not been paid. 3. Ms. Kaplas states that arrears from 2018 to 2022 shall also be released but in terms of decision taken by the Government. She states that though petitioner on account of aforesaid compliance is now eligible for arrears for the aforesaid period, but since Government of Himachal Pradesh has not paid arrears on account of revision to the employees of the departments till date and in that regard, certain instructions are being issued and as and when, final decision is taken by the Government, same shall also be applied in the case of the petitioner. 4. Though at this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner attempted to argue that sum of Rs. 20,000/- is being illegally deducted from the pension of the petitioner, but such fact, if any, cannot be disputed in the instant proceedings because same are meant to ensure the compliance of the mandate contained in the judgment alleged to have been violated. Being aggrieved, if any, on account of recovery, petitioner is always at liberty to file appropriate proceedings in appropriate court of law. 3 5. Consequently, in view of the above, present petition is disposed of. Notices discharged. November 14, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (manjit) Judge