IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Ex. Pet.(T) No.68 of 2026 Decided on: 22nd July, 2026 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tej Singh Kanwar …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and another .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Virender Singh Kanwar, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. L.N. Sharma, Additional Advocate General. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge CMP(T) No.197 of 2026 For the reasons assigned in the application, the same is allowed. Delay in re-filing the execution petition is condoned. The application stands disposed of. Ex. Pet.(T) No.68 of 2026 2. Petitioner seeks enforcement of Tej Singh Kanwar Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and another2, operative portion of which reads as under:- 1 Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes 2 “8. Consequently, in view of the detailed discussion made hereinabove as well as law taken into consideration, this Court finds merit in the present petition and accordingly, same is allowed. Order dated 26.04.2018 (Annexure A-7) is quashed and set aside and respondents are directed to regularize the services of the petitioner against the post of driver w.e.f. year 2007 when he had completed 8 years of continuous daily wage service with 240 days in each calendar year. Needless to say, petitioner shall not be entitled for arrears, if any on account of his regularization, as have been ordered by Industrial Tribunal while passing the order (Annexure A-7), which has now attained finality, but would be entitled for financial benefits including pay fixation etc. notionally from the date of his regularization till the date his services were wrongly regularized vide order dated 8 13.03.2015 (Annexure A- 4) and thereafter on actual basis. Since petitioner has been fighting for his rightful claim for the last so many years, this Court hopes and trust that needful shall be done by the respondents in terms of instant order, expeditiously within a period of four weeks.” 3. Respondents have filed the compliance affidavit, stating therein that the judgment in question has been duly implemented. Alongwith the compliance affidavit, office order passed by the respondents on 23.02.2023 towards implementation of the judgment has also been appended. In terms of the aforesaid office order, services of the petitioner have been regularized as Driver w.e.f. 01.01.2007 on notional basis and w.e.f. 13.03.2015 on actual basis. 4. Though learned counsel for the petitioner has raised certain grievance about the salary/emoluments allegedly due to the petitioner under the aforesaid office 2 CWPOA No.6738 of 2020, decided on 08.08.2022 3 order, however, the enforceable directions in Tej Singh Kanwar2 have been implemented by the respondents under office order dated 23.02.2023. In case the aforesaid office order gives some cause of action to the petitioner in relation to his salary etc., it is for the petitioner to seek appropriate remedy in accordance with law. With these observations, the present execution petition to stand disposed of. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua July 22, 2026 Judge Mukesh