IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Execution Petition No. 2338 of 2026 Date of Decision: 30.09.2026 _______________________________________________________ Bahadur 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. Surinder Saklani, 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 respondents- State. _______________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): By way of instant Execution Petition, prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioner for execution of judgment dated 24.04.2025 passed by this Court in CWP No. 3375 of 2022, titled Bahadur Singh vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, whereby this Court, while setting aside impugned order dated 07.08.2020, directed the respondents to consider and decide the application dated 23.07.2020 afresh in terms of policy prevalent at the time of death of father of the petitioner. Since despite repeated requests, needful has not been done, petitioner is compelled to approach this Court in the instant proceedings. 2. Careful perusal of the pleadings as well as other material adduced on record by the respective parties reveals that judgment otherwise sought to be executed has been upheld by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Special Leave to Appeal (c) No. 21450 of 2026 filed by the 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 respondent-State vide judgment dated 07.09.2026(Annexure E-5). Since judgment, sought to be executed, stands complied with, respondents have no option, but to comply with the mandate contained in the judgment sought to be executed. 3. While putting in appearance on behalf of the respondent-State Mr. Anish Banshtu, learned Deputy Advocate General, fairly states that on account of dismissal of SLP filed by the respondent-State, respondents have no option, but to implement the mandate contained in the judgment, sought to be executed. He undertakes on behalf of the respondents that needful in terms of the judgment sought to be executed shall be done expeditiously, preferably within a period of four weeks. 4. In view of aforesaid fair stand adopted by learned Deputy Advocate General, nothing remains to be adjudicated in the instant petition and accordingly, same is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to ensure that needful is done in terms of the judgment, sought to be executed within a period of four weeks, 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 30,2026 (shankar)