IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Execution Petition No. 1099 of 2024 Date of Decision: 29.09.2026 _______________________________________________________ Smt. Veerinder Surjit Singh …….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. Anuj Gupta & Mr. Rohit Sharma, Advocates. 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. Vikrant Thakur, Senior Advocate with Ms. Supriya Chaudhary, Advocate, for respondents No.3 and 4. _______________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): Learned counsel representing the petitioner fairly admits that substantial amount has been paid pursuant to judgment, sought to be executed, but still some amount is payable. 2. Learned Additional Advocate General fairly states that in the event of shortfall if any, petitioner may submit representation to the Department and same shall be considered and decided in accordance with law. 3. Consequently, in view of the above, nothing remains to be adjudicated in the instant proceedings and accordingly, same are closed. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 proceedings in appropriate Court of law for the surviving grievances, if any. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge September 29,2026 (shankar)