IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Execution Petition No.2076 of 2026 Date of Decision: 17.09.2025 _______________________________________________________ Ashwani Kumar …….Petitioner Versus CSKHPKVV & Anr. … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Radhey Shyam Gautam, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Prince Chauhan, Advocate, for respondent No.1. Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General 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 for implementation and execution of the order/judgment dated 30.03.2026 passed by this Court in CWP No.20645 of 2025, titled as Ashwani Kumar Vs. Chaudhary Sarwan Kumar Himachal Pradesh Krishi Vishvavidyalaya, Palampur and another. 2. Careful perusal of aforesaid order/judgment, sought to be executed in the present proceedings, reveals that Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, while disposing of the writ petition filed by the petitioner, 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2

directed the respondents to release the admissible Leave Encashment to the petitioner within three months. Since, despite there being specific direction to do the needful, as taken note herein above, respondents failed to comply with the judgment, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings. 3. Mr. Prince Chauhan, Advocate and Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, while accepting notice on behalf of the respondents, state that though he has every reason to believe and presume that by now aforesaid orders, sought to be executed, must have been complied with, but if not, same would be complied with within a period of four weeks from today. 4. Consequently, in view of the afore undertaking given by learned counsel for the respondents, this Court sees no reason to keep the present petition alive and as such, same is accordingly disposed of with direction to the respondents to do the needful, positively within a period of four weeks from today, 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 17, 2026 (sunil)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Execution Petition No.2076 of 2026 Date of Decision: 17.09.2025 _______________________________________________________ Ashwani Kumar …….Petitioner Versus CSKHPKVV & Anr. … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Radhey Shyam Gautam, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Prince Chauhan, Advocate, for respondent No.1. Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General 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 for implementation and execution of the order/judgment dated 30.03.2026 passed by this Court in CWP No.20645 of 2025, titled as Ashwani Kumar Vs. Chaudhary Sarwan Kumar Himachal Pradesh Krishi Vishvavidyalaya, Palampur and another. 2. Careful perusal of aforesaid order/judgment, sought to be executed in the present proceedings, reveals that Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, while disposing of the writ petition filed by the petitioner, 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2

directed the respondents to release the admissible Leave Encashment to the petitioner within three months. Since, despite there being specific direction to do the needful, as taken note herein above, respondents failed to comply with the judgment, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings. 3. Mr. Prince Chauhan, Advocate and Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, while accepting notice on behalf of the respondents, state that though he has every reason to believe and presume that by now aforesaid orders, sought to be executed, must have been complied with, but if not, same would be complied with within a period of four weeks from today. 4. Consequently, in view of the afore undertaking given by learned counsel for the respondents, this Court sees no reason to keep the present petition alive and as such, same is accordingly disposed of with direction to the respondents to do the needful, positively within a period of four weeks from today, 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 17, 2026 (sunil)