2026:HHC:36524 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Ex. Pet. No.1071 of 2026 Decided on: 26th August, 2026 Jagdish Chand ....Petitioner versus State of H.P. and others ...Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr.Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner: Ms. Pallvi Sharma, proxy counsel vice Mr. M.A. Safee, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Sumit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General. Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge (Oral) As per compliance affidavit filed by the respondents, the case of the petitioner has been considered and decided vide order dated 25.03.2026. The respondents have also placed on record the copy of order dated 25.03.2026. 2. A perusal of the aforesaid order reveals that the pay of the petitioner has been protected, subject to the final outcome of the legal remedy, if any. 3. This Court while disposing of the writ petition preferred by the petitioner on 09.01.2026 had given direction 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2026:HHC:36524 2 to the respondents to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner in terms of judgment dated 07.07.2022 passed in CWP No.842 of 2017, titled, State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors., vs. Sardari Lal and Others (alongwith connected matter). 4. Since the mandate contained in the judgment dated 09.01.2026 passed in CWP No.783 of 2026, titled, Jagdish Chand vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors., has been complied with and the respondents have passed the order on 25.03.2026 whereby the arrears have been restricted to 36 months, nothing remains to be adjudicated in the present execution petition and the same is closed. However, in case the arrears are not paid to the petitioner within 12 weeks from today, he shall be at liberty to file an application for revival of the petition. 5. The execution petition is accordingly disposed of, so also the pending applications, if any. ( Jiya Lal Bhardwaj ) 26th August, 2026 Judge (naveen)