1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Ex. Petition No. 1967 of 2025 Decided on: 26.05.2026 ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Krishan Lal …..Petitioner Versus The Himachal Pradesh Tourism Development Corporation Ltd. and another .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Om Parkash Goel, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr.Vinay Kuthiala, Senior Advocate with Ms. Maheshwari Sharma, Advocate. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Petitioner seeks enforcement of Krishan Lal versus Himachal Pradesh Tourism Development Corporation Ltd. and another2. The said writ petition was disposed of on the strength of the decision rendered in Tulsi Ram versus Himachal Pradesh Tourism Development Corporation Ltd. and another,3 as under:- “4. In the facts and circumstances of the case, this writ petition is disposed of by directing the respondents to:- 4(i). Release the admissible retiral benefits alongwith statutory interest to the petitioner within 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2CWP No.4944/2024, decided on 27.11.2024. 3CWP No.4427/2023, decided on 11.01.2024 2 a period of six months from today, in accordance with law. If the amount due is not paid within the aforesaid period, the same shall carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the due date of actual payment. 4(ii). Regarding the second relief prayed for by the petitioner, the respondents/competent authority are directed to consider and decide the case of the petitioner in light of the law laid down in Tulsi Ram’s case, supra, and in case the petitioner is found to be similarly situated, then the benefit extended to the petitioner in the aforesaid judgment, shall also be extended to the petitioner in the instant case also. The entire exercise in this regard be completed within six weeks from today. The decision so taken, shall be communicated to the petitioner.” 2. Learned Senior counsel for the respondent- Corporation submits that all benefits admissible to the petitioner alongwith applicable interest have since been released in his favour and direction No. 4(i) issued in Krishan Lal2 stands complied with. In so far as direction No. 4(ii) is concerned, learned Senior counsel for respondent- Corporation submits that respondents have preferred a petition seeking review of Tulsi Ram3 alongwith application bearing CMP(M) No.2283/2025 for condoning the delay in preferring review petition. In the given facts and circumstances, the petitioner’s prayer for enforcement of direction No. 4(ii) be considered after decision of review petition preferred in Tulsi Ram3 as even otherwise the respondents are bound to pay interest to the petitioner for the monetary benefits admissible to him under the decision. 3 3. Taking note of above submissions and the fact that direction No. 4(i) has been implemented by the respondents, this execution petition is disposed of at this stage. The petitioner is reserved liberty to revive the execution petition in case necessity so arises at an appropriate stage/after the decision of review petition in Tulsi Ram3. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua May 26, 2026 Judge yogesh