IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA COPC No.08 of 2021 with COPC No.469 of 2021 Date of Decision: 03.09.2026 _______________________________________________________ 1. COPC No.08 of 2021 Mansa Ram Sharma & others …….Petitioners Versus Sh. Prashant Sirkek, Registrar, Dr. Y.S. Parmar University of Horticulture and Forestry, Nauni, Solan … Respondent _______________________________________________________ 2. COPC No.469 of 2021 Anant Ram & others …….Petitioners Versus Sh. Prashant Sirkek & others … Respondents ______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioners: Mr. P.P.Chauhan, Advocate (through video conferencing) & Ms. Shikha Rajta, Advocate for the petitioners in COPC No.8 of 2021 and Ms. Dhanvanti Devi, Advocate, for the petitioners in COPC No.469 of 2021. For the Respondents: Mr. Ramesh Sharma, Advocate. _______________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): Pursuant to order dated 31.08.2026 passed by this Court, Mr. Ramesh Sharma, learned counsel representing the respondent-University has obtained the instructions. He states that though in view of judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in Special Leave Petition(Civil) No. 19414 of 2024 titled Dr. Y.S. Parmar University of Horticulture and Forestry, Nauni vs. Anant Ram and 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 others, judgment alleged to have been violated passed by this court has attained finality and as such, respondent-University has no option, but to implement the mandate contained in the same, but since huge amount is required to meet out the arrears and in that regard, demand is being raised before the State of Himachal Pradesh and as such, four weeks' time may be granted to comply with the mandate contained in the judgment alleged to have been violated. 2. Since it is apparent from the statement made by counsel representing the respondent-University that respondent-University is willing to implement the mandate contained in the judgment alleged to have been violated, there appears to be no justification to keep the present petitions alive and accordingly, same are disposed of with a direction to respondent-University to ensure that arrears on account of implementation of judgment shall be released to the petitioners within a period of six weeks, failing which, petitioners would be at liberty to get the present proceedings revived, so that appropriate action in accordance with law is taken against erring officials for their having willfully and intentionally disobeyed the mandate contained in the judgment alleged to have been violated. Notice issued to the respondent is hereby discharged accordingly. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge September 03,2026 (shankar)