IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Execution Petition No.2071 of 2026 Date of Decision: 16.9.2026 _____________________________________________________________________ Sudesh Kumar ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Radhey Shyam Gautam, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General and Mr. Ravi Chauhan & Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General, for respondent No.1. Mr. Prince Chauhan, Advocate, for respondent No.2. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) By way of present execution petition, prayer has been made by the petitioner for implementation and execution of order/judgment dated 30.3.2026, passed by coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No.20276 of 2025, titled Sudesh Kumar v. Chaudhary Sarwan Kumar Himachal Pradesh Krishi Vishvavidyalaya and Anr., whereby afore petition came to be disposed of with a direction to respondents/competent authority to consider and decide case of the petitioner in light of judgment dated 2 23.7.2025, passed in CWP No. 10878 of 2025, titled as Himachal Pradesh Agriculture University Pensioner’s Sabha v. Chaudhary Sarwan Kumar Himachal Pradesh Krishi Vishvavidyalaya and Anr. Respondents were further directed to release admissible Leave Encashment to the petitioner within a period of three months, failing which, petitioner was held entitled to interest @ 5% from the date of passing of the judgment. Since no action, whatsoever, came to be taken at the behest of the respondents pursuant to aforesaid direction, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents, state that though they have every reason to presume and believe that by now, order/judgment sought to be executed, must have been complied with in its totality, but if not, same would be definitely complied with within a period of four weeks from today. 3. Consequently, in view of the fair stand adopted by learned counsel for the respondents, this Court sees no reason to keep present petition alive and accordingly, same is disposed of with direction to the respondents to do the needful in terms of judgment alleged to have been violated within a period of four weeks, failing which petitioner would be at liberty to get the present petition revived so that appropriate action in 3 accordance with law is taken towards implementation of the order/judgment. September 16, 2026 (Sandeep Sharma), (manjit) Judge