2025:HHC:6460 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Execution Petition No.33 of 2025 Date of Decision: 18.03.2025 _______________________________________________________ Satish Kumar …….Petitioner Versus HRTC & Anr. … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Manohar Lal Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Raman Jamalta, Advocate. _______________________________________________________ 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 to implement/ execute the order/judgment dated 22.03.2024 passed by this Court in CWP No.3754 of 2023, titled as Satish Kumar Vs. HRTC & Anr. 2. Careful perusal of aforesaid order/judgment, sought to be executed in the present proceedings, reveals that this Court, while allowing the writ petition, held the petitioner entitled to the benefit of regular employment from his initial date of appointment alongwith consequential benefits as have been granted to the petitioner in CWP No. 2334 of 2024, titled as Mohit Sharma Vs. HRTC. Since, despite there being specific direction to do the needful, as taken note herein 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 above, respondents failed to comply with the judgment, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings. 3. Mr. Raman Jamalta, Advocate, while accepting notice on behalf of the respondents, states that though he has every reason to believe and presume that by now aforesaid order, sought to be executed, must have been complied with, but if not, same would be complied with within a period of four weeks from today. 4. Consequently, in view of the afore undertaking given by learned counsel for the respondent, 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 four weeks from today, 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 March 18, 2025 (sunil)