2025:HHC:2722 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Execution Petition (T) No. 9 of 2025 Date of Decision: 10.01.2025 _______________________________________________________ Kuldeep Kumar …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. A.K.Gupta, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar & Mr. B.C.Verma, Additional Advocate Generals with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. _______________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): By way of instant Execution Petition, prayer has been made on behalf of petitioner for issuance of directions to the respondents to implement/ execute the judgment/order dated 27.03.2018 passed by Erstwhile HP Administrative Tribunal in OA No.275 of 2016, titled as Kuldeep Kumar Vs. State of HP & Ors. 2. Careful perusal of aforesaid judgment, sought to be executed in the present proceedings, reveals that Tribunal below having taken note of the statement made by learned counsel for the petitioner that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the judgment dated 06.10.2015 passed by this Court in CWP No. 9094 of 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2013 titled as Surinder Kumar Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors., disposed of the petition, with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the case of the petitioner in light of the aforesaid judgment within a period of four months. Since, despite there being specific direction to do the needful, as taken note herein above, respondents failed to comply with the judgment/order in terms of afore judgment, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings. 3. Mr. Rajan Kahol, 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 order/judgment, 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, failing which, petitioner would be at liberty to get the present proceedings revived, so that appropriate action, in accordance with 3 law, is taken towards implementation of the judgment/ order, sought to be executed in the instant proceedings. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge January 10, 2025 (sunil)