Dr. Arif Javed Mirza vs State Of H.P. And Others
2025 Latest Caselaw 1959 HP

Himachal Pradesh High Court

Dr. Arif Javed Mirza vs State Of H.P. And Others on 15 July, 2025

Author: Sandeep Sharma

Bench: Sandeep Sharma

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
                                     Execution Petition No.303 of 2024
                                           Date of Decision: 15.07.2025
    _____________________________________________________________________




                                                               .

    Dr. Arif Javed Mirza                                   .........Petitioner
                                           Versus
    State of H.P. and Others                                .......Respondents





    Coram
    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.
    Whether approved for reporting?
    For the Petitioner:       Mr. S.P. Chatterji, Advocate.





    For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, with Mr.
                         Rajan Kahol and Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional
                         Advocates General, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan,
                         Deputy Advocate General, for State.

    ___________________________________________________________________________

    Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)

While placing on record communication dated 14.07.2025,

issued under the signatures of Director Health Services, Himachal

Pradesh, Mr. Anup Rattan, learned Advocate General, fairly states that

on account of order dated 08.07.2025 passed by Coordinate Bench of

this Court in CMP-T No.49 of 2025 in CWPOA No.1184 of 2020,

respondents have no option but to implement the mandate contained

in the judgment, sought to be executed, but since Coordinate Bench of

this Court has granted two months' time to pay the consequential

benefits, matter at hand can also be disposed with similar directions.

2. In view of aforesaid fair stand adopted by learned

Advocate General, present execution petition is disposed of, with the

directions to respondents to ensure that mandate contained in the

judgment, sought to be executed, is implemented in its letter and

spirit, within a period of two 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 implementation of

the judgment, sought to be executed.

    July 15, 2025                           (Sandeep Sharma),
      (Rajeev Raturi)                            Judge




                           r  to