IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Execution Petition No.2710 of 2025 Date of Decision: 01.01.2026 _______________________________________________________ Krishan Lal …….Petitioner Versus HRTC & Ors. … Respondent s Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Manohar Lal Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Dheeraj K. Vashisht, 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 13.05.2025 passed by this Court in CWP No.4445 of 2025, titled as Krishan Lal Vs. HRTC & Ors. 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 pending representation of the petitioner in light of judgment passed by Division Bench of this Court in CWPOA No.195 of 2019, titled as Smt. Sheela Devi Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. within six weeks. Since, despite there being specific direction to do the needful, as taken note herein above, 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 respondents failed to comply with the judgment, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings. 3. Mr. Dheeraj K. Vashisht, Advocate. 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 three weeks from today. 4. Consequently, in view of the afore undertaking given by learned counsel representing 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 January 01, 2026 (sunil)