2026:HHC:37835 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Execution Petition No. 1835 of 2026 Date of Decision: 07.09.2026 _______________________________________________________ Kusum Lata …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & others … Respondents ______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. M.L.Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocate Generals with Mr. Ravi Chauhan & Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General, for the respondent/State. Mr. Dhananjay Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.4. _______________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): By way of instant Execution Petition, prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioner for issuance of directions to the respondents to implement/ execute the order/judgment dated 26.11.2025 passed by this Court in CWP No. 6003 of 2024, titled Kusum Lata vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others. 2. Careful perusal of aforesaid order/judgment, sought to be executed in the instant proceedings, reveals that this Court, while allowing the petition, directed the respondents to pay the revised pay scale of Rs. 3120-5160 w.e.f. 1.1.1996 and Rs. 5160-20200 plus Grade pay of Rs. 1900/- w.e.f. 1.1.2006 to the petitioner alongwith 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2026:HHC:37835 revised gratuity and leave encashment within eight weeks, failing which, petitioner shall be entitled to payment of interest from the due date. Since, despite there being specific direction to do the needful, as taken note hereinabove, respondents have failed to do so, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings. 3. Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, while accepting notice on behalf of the respondents, states that though he has every reason to believe and presume that by now aforesaid judgment/ order must have been complied with, but if not, same would be complied with within a period of three weeks from today. 4. Consequently, in view of the fair statement made by learned Additional Advocate General, this Court sees no reason to keep the present petition alive and as such, same is accordingly disposed of with the direction to the respondents to do the needful in terms of order/judgment dated 26.11.2025 passed by this Court, positively within a period of three weeks, if not already done, failing which, petitioner would be at liberty to get the present proceedings revived, so that appropriate action, in accordance with law, is taken towards implementation of the judgment/ order, sought to be executed in the instant proceedings. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge September 07,2026 (shankar)