IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Execution Petition No.772 of 2025 Date of Decision: 01.07.2025 _______________________________________________________ Paramjeet Yadav & Anr. …….Petitioners Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. … Respondent s Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioners: Mr. Adarsh K.Vashista, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocate Generals with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. _______________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): By way of instant Execution Petition, prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioners for issuance of directions to the respondents for implementation and execution of the order/judgment dated 19.03.2025 passed by this Court in CWP No.1851 of 2025, titled as Paramjeet Yadav & another Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and another. 2. Careful perusal of aforesaid order/judgment, sought to be executed in the present proceedings, reveals that this Court, while disposing of the writ petition filed by the petitioners, directed the respondents to consider and decide the representation of the petitioners (Annexure P-6) in light of judgment passed by Division Bench of this Court in CWPOA No. 5536 of 2020 titled as Sanjay 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 Kumar Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. within eight weeks. Since, despite there being specific direction to do the needful, as taken note herein above, respondents failed to comply with the judgment, petitioners have approached this Court in the instant proceedings. 3. Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, while accepting notice on behalf of the respondents, states that though he has every reason to believe and presume that by now aforesaid orders, sought to be executed, must have been complied with, but if not, same would be complied with within a period of four weeks from today. 4. Consequently, in view of the afore undertaking given by learned Additional Advocate General, 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, positively within a period of four weeks, if not already done, failing which, petitioners 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 July 01, 2025 (sunil)