IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Execution Petition No.2625 of 2025 Date of Decision: 17.12.2025 _______________________________________________________ Dharamvir …….Petitioner Versus HRTC & others … Respondents ______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Mandeep Chandel, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rahul Gathania, 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 petitioner for issuance of directions to the respondents to implement/ execute the order/judgment dated 21.07.2025, passed by this Court in CWP No.11643of 2025, titled Dharamvir vs. HRTC and others. 2. Careful perusal of aforesaid order/judgment, sought to be executed in the instant proceedings, reveals that this Court, while disposing of the petition, directed the respondents to consider and decide the case of the petitioner in light of 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, within a period of four weeks. Since, despite there being specific 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 direction to do the needful, as taken note hereinabove, respondents have failed to grant the benefit to the petitioner in terms of the aforesaid judgment, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings. 3. Mr. Rahul Gathania, 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 three 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 21.07.2025 within a period of three weeks, if not already done, 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 December 17,2025 (shankar)