IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Execution Petition (T) No.69 of 2025 Date of Decision: 23.05.2025 _______________________________________________________ Joginder Singh …….Petitioner Versus The Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Limited & Anr. … Respondents ______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Babita Chauhan, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Gaurav Chaudhary, Advocate vice Ms. Vandana Misra, Advocate. _______________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): By way of instant Execution Petition filed under Rule 16 of the H.P. High Court Original Side Rules, prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioner for issuance of directions to the respondents to implement/ execute the order dated 07.12.2017, passed by erstwhile H.P. Administrative Tribunal in OA (M) No.550 of 2016, titled Joginder Singh vs. The Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Limited and another. 2. Careful perusal of aforesaid order, sought to be executed in the instant proceedings, reveals that learned Tribunal below having taken note of the statement made by learned counsel for the 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 petitioner that case of the petitioner is squarely covered by order dated 24.09.2015 passed by learned Tribunal in O.A No.1304 of 2015, titled Nanak Chand and others vs. The Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Limited and another, disposed of the original application with a direction to the respondents/ competent authority to consider and decide the case of the petitioner in light of aforesaid judgment. Since, despite there being specific direction to do the needful, as taken note hereinabove, respondents have failed to grant the benefit to the petitioner in terms of the aforesaid judgment, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings. 3. Mr. Gaurav Chaudhary, learned counsel representing the respondents, while accepting notice on behalf of the respondents, states that though he has every reason to believe and presume that by now aforesaid judgment/ order must have been complied with, but if not, same would be complied with within a period of two weeks from today. 4. Consequently, in view of the fair statement made 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 the direction to the respondents to do the needful in terms of order dated 07.12.2017, passed by learned Tribunal below in OA(M) No.550 of 2016, positively within a period of two weeks, if 3 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 May 23,2025 (shankar)