IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Execution Petition No.1022 of 2025 Date of Decision: 25.07.2025 _______________________________________________________ Rajinder Kumar …….Petitioner Versus HRTC & Amr. … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Sat Prakash, Advocate. For the Respondents: Ms. Aashima Premy, Advocate vice Mr. Raman Jamalta, Advocate. _______________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): By way of instant Execution Petition, prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioner for issuance of directions to the respondents for implementation and execution of the order/judgment dated 08.05.2025 passed by this Court in CWP No.7635 of 2025, titled as Rajinder Kumar Vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation & 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 petitioner, directed the respondents to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner in light of judgment passed by Division Bench of this Court in CWP No. 3050 of 2014, titled as Nek Ram Vs. State of Himachal 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 Pradesh and others within four weeks. Since, despite there being specific direction to do the needful, as taken note herein above, respondents failed to comply with the judgment, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings. 3. Ms. Aashima Premy, Advocate, while accepting notice on behalf of the respondents, states that though she 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 three weeks from today. 4. Consequently, in view of the afore undertaking given 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, positively within a period of three weeks, if 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 July 25, 2025 (sunil)