2026:HHC:40730 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Execution Petition No. 828 of 2025 Date of Decision: 23.09.2026 _______________________________________________________ Adarsh Bala …….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. Aditya Kaushal, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocate Generals with Mr. Ravi Chauhan & Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General. _______________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): While placing on record communication dated 22nd September, 2026 issued under the signatures of Director School Education, Himachal Pradesh, enclosing therewith copy of office order dated 22nd September 2026, issued by Deputy Director, School Education (Elementary), Kangra at Dharamshala, Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General, states that the mandate contained in the judgment, sought to be executed, stands complied with. 2. Having carefully perused aforesaid documents, which are taken on record, this Court finds merit in the afore submission of learned Additional Advocate General. 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2026:HHC:40730 3. Careful perusal of office order dated 22nd September, 2026, suggests that services of the petitioner w.e.f. 02.03.1981 have been considered for increment, pay fixation, admissible time senor scale, ACPs and revised retiral benefits from 01.03.2009, notionally and actual arrears shall accrue from 23.05.2014 from the date of three years preceding the filing of the petition, O.A. No. 57 of 2017 on 23.05.2017. Further, annual increment on dated 01.03.2009 has been granted in favour of the petitioner by considering her one year's unblemished service from 01.03.2008 till her retirement from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 28.02.2009. 4. In view of the above, nothing remains to be adjudicated in the instant proceeding and accordingly, same are closed with a direction to the respondents to ensure that consequential benefits flowing from the aforesaid compliance, if not already released, shall be released expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months, failing which, petitioner would be at liberty to get the present petition revived, so that appropriate action in accordance with law is taken towards the attachment of the property of the department as well as salary of the erring official. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge September 23,2026 (shankar)