IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Execution Petition No.1390 of 2024 Date of Decision: 06.03.2025 _______________________________________________________ Ganga Ram and others …….Petitioners Versus HRTC & others … Respondents ______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioners: Mr. Sahil Thakur, Proxy counsel vice Mr. Mandeep Chandel, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Raman Jamalta, Advocate. _______________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): By way of instant Execution Petition filed under Rule 16(1) of the H.P. High Court Original Side Rules, prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioners for issuance of directions to the respondents to implement/ execute the order/judgment dated 15.5.2024, passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No.4038 of 2024, titled Ganga Ram and others vs. HRTC and others. 2. Careful perusal of aforesaid order/judgment, sought to be executed in the instant proceedings, reveals that Co-ordinate Bench of this Court having taken note of the statement made by learned counsel for the petitioners that case of the petitioners is squarely 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 covered by the judgment dated 17.7.2014 rendered by Division Bench of this Court in CWP No.3050 of 2014, titled Nek Ram versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others, disposed of the petition with a direction to the respondents/ competent authority to grant benefit of aforesaid judgment to the petitioners, if they are found similar situate to the petitioner in that case. Since, despite there being specific direction to do the needful, as taken note hereinabove, respondents have failed to grant the benefit to the petitioners in terms of the aforesaid judgment, petitioners have approached this Court in the instant proceedings. 3. Mr. Raman Jamalta, learned counsel representing the respondents, while accepting notice on behalf of the respondents, states that though he has every reason to believe and presume that by now aforesaid judgment/ order must have been complied with, but if not, same would be complied with within a period of eight weeks from today. 4. Consequently, in view of the fair statement made by learned counsel for 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 in terms of order/judgment dated 15.5.2024, passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No.4038 of 2024, positively within a 3 period of eight weeks, if not already done, failing which, petitioners 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 March 06,2025 (shankar)