Judgment Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. By the medium of the present petition, the petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Order 21 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, read with Rule 16 of the Original Side Writ Rules, for directions to the respondents to comply with the judgment, dated 2nd July, 2013, passed by this Court in CWP No.2230 of 2013, titled Sita Ram vs. State of H.P. and others. Respondents have not filed the reply as yet, though have passed the consideration order Annexure P-2 with the execution petition in terms of the judgment supra, a perusal of which does disclose that that the respondents have complied with the directions passed by this Court and granted the work charge status to the petitioner w.e.f. 1st January, 1997. 2. It has been mentioned in paragraph 3 of the consideration order (annexure P-2) that the services of the petitioner were regularized against the post of Forest Worker on and w.e.f. 14th July, 1999. 3. Thus, the only dispute is – whether the petitioner is entitled for arrears from 1st January, 1997 upto 13th July, 1999. 4. The petitioner approached the Court, for the first time, in the year 2013. Thus, the arrears can be restricted for three years prior to filing of the writ petition, as has been held by the Apex Court in Jai Dev Gupta vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and another, reported in AIR 1998 SC 2819 , Union of India and others vs. Tarsem Singh reported in (2008) 8 SCC 648 and in Asger Ibrahm Amin vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India, reported in JT 2015 (9) SC 329, which decisions of the Apex Court have been followed by this Court in LPA No.132 of 2009, titled Suresh Chander Chauhan vs. Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board, decided on 1st December, 2015. 5. Having said so, we are of the considered view that the respondents have complied with the directions passed by this Court. Accordingly, the contempt petition is dismissed. However, in case the petitioner is still aggrieved, he is at liberty to challenge the order (Annexure P-2).