IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Execution Petition No. 268 of 2024 Date of Decision: 5.6.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Joginder Kumar and Ors. ……...Petitioners Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioners: Mr. Hemant K. Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for the State. Mr. Raman Jamalta, Advocate, for respondents No.3 and 4. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) By way of present execution petition, prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioners for implementation and execution of order/judgment dated 5.7.2024, passed by coordinate Bench of this Court in CWPOA No. 38 of 2020, titled Suresh Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors., whereby afore petition came to be disposed of with a direction to respondent/competent authority to consider and decide case of 2 the petitioner in light of judgment dated 9.11.2023, passed in CWPOA No. 2343 of 2020, titled Vikram Singh v. Himachal Road Transport Corporation, within a period of six weeks. 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. Learned counsel for the respondents state that though they have 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 parties, 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 petitioners 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 5, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (manjit) Judge