2025:HHC:1668 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Execution Petition No.1216 of 2024 Date of Decision: 08.01.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Manju Bhardwaj and Others ……...Petitioners Versus State of H.P. and Others …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioners: Mr. Vikas Rajput, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents No.1 to 3/State. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) While placing on record communication dated 07.01.2025, issued under the signatures of Director, Department of Elementary Education, Himachal Pradesh, Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General states that mandate contained in the judgment, sought to be executed, could not be complied with, on account of pendency of LPA No.232 of 2024, which otherwise now stands decided, vide judgment dated 02.09.2024. Aforesaid communication, which is taken on record, clearly reveals that LPA, as detailed hereinabove, already stands decided. If it is so, there appears to be no justification to further delay the compliance of the judgment, sought to be executed in the instant proceedings. There is nothing on record to suggest that judgment, sought to be executed, has been set-aside, varied or 2025:HHC:1668 2 modified and if it is so, directions contained in the same are required to be complied with forthwith. 2. Faced with aforesaid situation, learned Additional Advocate General undertakes to comply with the mandate contained in the judgment, sought to be executed, within a period of four weeks. 3. Consequently, in view of the fair stand adopted by the learned Additional Advocate General, 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 sought to be executed, within a period of four weeks, failing which petitioner would be at liberty to get the present petition revived so that appropriate action in accordance with law is taken towards the implementation of the order/judgment. January 08, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (Rajeev Raturi) Judge