IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Execution Petition No.794 of 2026 Decided on: 14.08.2026 ____________________________________________________________ Chaman Lal ...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others ...Respondents _____________________________________________________________ Coram Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the petitioner: Ms. Vijay Bharti Sharma, Advocate, vice, Mr. Arush Matlotia, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Rupinder Singh Thakur, Additional Advocate General. Jiya Lal Bhardwaj , Judge (Oral) The petitioner by way of present petition is seeking implementation of the judgment dated 16.08.2012, passed in CWP No.2799 of 2012, titled, Chaman Lal vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & others, wherein direction was given to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for regular appointment as Beldar, in view of the judgment dated 04.07.2011, passed in CWP No.16006 of 2008, titled, Jaimaldeen vs. State of H.P. and Ors. 2. The respondents have filed reply to the execution petition. Along with reply they have also placed on record a copy of office order dated 31.03.2026, passed by the 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 Engineer-in-Chief, HPPWD, Shimla-2. 3. A perusal of the aforesaid office order reveals that the writ petition filed by Jaimaldeen was allowed by the learned Single Judge of this Court on 04.07.2011, but in LPA No.99 of 2013, the said judgment was set aside. Thereafter the benefits granted to Sh. Jaimaldeen, had been withdrawn by the Department on 29.03.2014. 4. Since this Court had only given direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for regular appointment, in view of the judgment passed in Jaimaldeen’s case (supra), which has been set aside by the Division Bench of this Court in an appeal and thereafter the Engineer-in-Chief, HPPWD, Shimla-2, has passed an order on 31.03.2026, stating that the benefits granted to Jaimaldeen have been withdrawn and no case remains with the petitioner to claim any parity. Since the mandate contained in the judgment sought to be executed, has been implemented, nothing remains to be adjudicated in the present execution petition and the same is disposed of. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. 14 th A ugust , 2026 ( Jiya Lal Bhardwaj ) (Anurag) Judge