IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Execution Petition No.2154 of 2025 Date of Decision: 07.11.2025 _______________________________________________________ Shri Manglu Ram …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Ms. Tim Saran Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General, Mr. Ravi Chauhan & Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General. _______________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): By way of instant Execution Petition, prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioner for issuance of directions to the respondents for implementation and execution of the order/judgment dated 23.04.2025 passed by this Court in CWP No.3964 of 2024, titled as Manglu Ram Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. 2. Careful perusal of aforesaid order/judgment, sought to be executed in the present proceedings, reveals that this Court, while disposing of the writ petition filed by the petitioner, directed the 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 respondents to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner within ten days in light of judgments passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No.4299 of 2019, titled as Pushpa Devi Vs. Himachal Pradesh University, in CWP No. 5090 of 2022, titled as Umesh Jaswal Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors., and in CWPOA No. 1077 of 2019, titled as Nitin Kumar Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. Since, despite there being specific direction to do the needful, as taken note herein above, respondents failed to comply with the judgment, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings. 3. Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General, while accepting notice on behalf of the respondents, states that though he has every reason to believe and presume that by now aforesaid orders, sought to be executed, must have been complied with, but if not, same would be complied with within a period of six weeks from today. 4. Consequently, in view of the afore undertaking given by learned Additional Advocate General, 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, positively within a period of six weeks from today, if not already done, 3 failing which, petitioner 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 November 07, 2025 (sunil)