IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Execution Petition No.1937 of 2025 Date of Decision: 10.10.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Smt. Biasa 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: Mr. Jagan Nath, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for State. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) By way of instant execution petition, prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioner for execution and implementation of judgment dated 30.05.2025, passed by this Court in CWP No.7727 of 2022, whereby this Court passed the following order: “6. In view of above, the stand taken by the respondents for rejecting petitioner’s case becomes wholly untenable. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner afresh for grant of pension and pensionary benefits to her in light of decision rendered in Roop Lal’s case within a period of four weeks from today. The order so passed be also communicated to the petitioner. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.” 2. 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 3. 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 four weeks from today. 4. Consequently, in view of 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. October 10, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (Rajeev Raturi) Judge