2025:HHC:32054 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Execution Petition No.7 of 2025 Date of Decision: 16.09.2025 __________________________________________________ Yudhbir Singh ....Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others …Respondents ___________________________________________________ Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the petitioner: Mr. Suresh Kumar Saini and Mr.Rajendra Gulati, Advocates. For the respondents: Mr. Pranay Pratap Singh, Additional Advocate General. G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice (Oral) Execution of the order passed in CWP No. 6604 of 2021 titled Yudhbir Singh vs. State of H.P and others, alongwith LPA No. 165 of 2021 (lead case) titled State of H.P and others vs. Surajmani and another, decided on 12.01.2023, is sought. 2. Order dated 25.08.2025 has been placed on record by the respondent, including an order dated 06.08.2025, 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 whereby, it has been specifically mentioned that the Chief Project Director has recorded that the issues raised in this case are different from the issues raised in Surajmani’s case, as the employee as such was working on Externally Aided Project, but his case had been clubbed with Surajmani’s case. 3. It is pointed out that now a Review has been filed in the Apex Court, which finds mention in the order dated 25.08.2025. The said order would go on to show that the Work Charge Status has been given from 01.01.2005 and the necessary benefits thereafter have been granted after requisite period of 10 years’ of fixation on notional basis, in view of the judgment passed in Civil Appeal No.1595 of 2025 titled The State of Himachal Pradesh & Others Vs. Surajmani & another, decided on 06.02.2025, by the Apex Court. 4. Resultantly, we are of the considered opinion that the present petition has been rendered infructuous. 5. However, in view of the matter is still pending for clarification before the apex Court, as mentioned by the State, it will be open to the petitioner to file appropriate application for revival after reasonable period, if still aggrieved, in case the State does not press for review petition. 3 6. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of accordingly. ( G.S. Sandhawalia ) Chief Justice 16th September, 2025 ( Ranjan Sharma ) (priti) Judge