IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Execution Petition No. 2326 of 2026 Date of Decision: 28.09.2026 _______________________________________________________ Kamna Ram …….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. Suresh Singh Saini, 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. _______________________________________________________ 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 13.08.2025 passed by this Court in CWP No. 8483 of 2025, titled Kamna Ram 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 consider the case of the petitioner for grant of pension taking into consideration the Whole Time Contingent period w.e.f.17.05.2006 to 08.09.2007 as qualifying service in addition to regular service of nine years and ten days and if otherwise found eligible, forward the same to the office of Accountant 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 General within a period of three weeks from the date of this order, enabling it to issue PPO within a period of four weeks thereafter. 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 13.08.2025 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 28,2026 (shankar)