2025:HHC:326 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Execution Petition (T) No.299 of 2024 Date of Decision: 02.01.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Kanta Devi ……...Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and Others …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: M/s A.K. Gupta and Abhyendra Gupta, Advocates. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Additional Advocate General, for respondents/State. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) By way of present execution petition, prayer has been made by the petitioner for implementation and execution of order/judgment dated 09.01.2021, passed by this Court in CWP (OA) No.475 of 2020, titled Kanta Devi Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Others, whereby Coordinate Bench of this Court while disposing of the writ petition, directed respondents to consider and decide the case of the petitioner in light of judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.6309 of 2017, titled Sunder Singh Vs. The State of Himachal Pradesh and Others, decided on 08.03.2018 and in case the same is found to be covered by aforesaid judgment, then similar benefits be extended to the writ petitioner, as were granted to the petitioner in Sunder Singh’s case (supra). Since no action, whatsoever, 2025:HHC:326 2 came to be taken at the behest of the respondents pursuant to aforesaid direction, present petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings. 2. Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General while putting in appearance on behalf of the respondents, states that though he has 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 three weeks from today. 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 three 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 02, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (Rajeev Raturi) Judge