IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Execution Petition No. 86 of 2025 Date of Decision: 18.6.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Mast Ram ……...Petitioner Versus Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Ltd. and Anr. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioner: Mr. A.K. Gupta and Ms. Babita Chauhan, Advocates. For the Respondents: Mr. Virender Singh Kanwar, Advocate. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) By way of present execution petition, prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioner for implementation and execution of order/judgment dated 12.12.2017, passed by the Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal in OA No. 6514 of 2017, titled Mast Ram. v. Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Ltd. and Anr., whereby afore case came to be disposed of with a direction to respondents/competent authority to consider and decide case of the petitioner in light of judgment dated 4.9.2017, rendered by Division Bench of this Court in CWP No. 2398 of 2016, titled Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Ltd. and Anr. v. 2 Nanak Chand and Ors and the connected matters, within a period of two months. Since no action, whatsoever, came to be taken at the behest of the respondents pursuant to aforesaid direction, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings. 2. Mr. Virender Singh Kanwar, Advocate, while putting in appearance on behalf of the respondents, states that though he has every reason to presume and believe that by now, order/judgment sought to be executed, must have been complied with in its totality, but if not, same would be definitely complied with within a period of two weeks from today. 3. Consequently, in view of the fair stand adopted by the learned counsel for the respondents, this Court sees no reason to keep present petition alive and accordingly, same is disposed of with direction to the respondents to do the needful in terms of judgment alleged to have been violated within a period of two weeks, failing which petitioner would be at liberty to get the present petition revived so that appropriate action in accordance with law is taken towards implementation of the order/judgment. June 18, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (manjit) Judge