IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Execution Petition No.1825 of 2026 Date of Decision: 03.09.2026 _______________________________________________________ Bachan Singh & Ors. …….Petitioners Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioners: Mr. Ganesh Barowalia, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General with Mr. Ravi Chauhan & Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General, for the State. Mr. Abhishek Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.2. _______________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): By way of instant Execution Petition, prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioners for issuance of directions to the respondents for implementation and execution of the order/judgment dated 28.05.2024 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No.8200 of 2021, titled as Bachan Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. 2. Careful perusal of aforesaid order/judgment, sought to be executed in the present proceedings, reveals that Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, while disposing of the writ petition filed by the petitioners, directed 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 respondent No.2-Director Higher Education, Himachal Pradesh to consider and decide the claim of the petitioners by taking into consideration the judgments passed in LPA No. No. 21 of 2013, titled as State of H.P. & others Vs. Ravinder Kumar; CWP No. 6446 of 2023, titled as Priyanka Nagu Vs. State of H.P. & another and judgment dated 13.5.2024 passed in CWPOA No. 1453 of 2020, titled as Himachal Government Teachers Union and others Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others and facts and circumstances of the present case within eight weeks by passing a speaking and reasoned order. Since, despite there being specific direction to do the needful, as taken note herein above, respondents failed to comply with the judgment, petitioners have 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 orders, sought to be executed, 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 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 direction to the respondents to do the needful, positively within a period of three weeks from today, if not already done, failing which, petitioners would be at liberty to get the present proceedings revived, so that appropriate 3 action, in accordance with law, is taken towards implementation of the judgment/ order, sought to be executed in the instant proceedings. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge September 03, 2026 (sunil)