IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Execution Petition No. 1842 of 2025 Date of Decision: 23.09.2025 _______________________________________________________ Krishan Bhardwaj …….Petitioner Versus The Himachal Pradesh Tourism Development Corporation Limited … Respondent ______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner : Mr. Om Parkash Goel, Advocate. For the Respondents: Ms. Maheshwari Sharma, 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 respondent to implement/ execute the order/judgment dated 13.03.2025 passed by this Court in CWP No. 7559 of 2024, titled as Krishan Bhardwaj vs. HPTDC, whereby direction came to be issued to the respondent to pay all the emoluments within a period of three months alongwith statutory interest as well as other interest. Since despite there being aforesaid directions, needful has not been done by the respondent within the stipulated time, petitioner is compelled to approach this Court in the instant proceedings. 2. While putting in appearance on behalf of the respondent Ms. Maheshwari Sharma, Advocate states that amount qua higher gratuity and leave encashment shall be paid within a period of six 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 weeks and arrears shall be paid once appropriate budget is received from the Government. 3. Though, in the case at hand, amount on account of higher gratuity and leave encashment has been undertaken to be paid within a period of six weeks, but this Court finds from the record that arrears in the case at hand is only for a period of seven months and as such, this Court, while disposing the petition at hand, deems it fit to direct the respondents to ensure that amount qua higher gratuity, leave encashment and arrears shall be paid expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months, 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 September 23,2025 (shankar)