2026:HHC:37825 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Execution Petition No. 1912 of 2026 Date of Decision: 07.09.2026 _______________________________________________________ Sharda Devi …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & others … Respondents ______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Abhinav Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocate Generals with 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 to implement/ execute the order/judgment dated 11.05.2026 passed by Division Bench of this Court CWP No. 16093 of 2025, titled Sharda Devi vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others. 2. Careful perusal of aforesaid order/judgment, sought to be executed in the instant proceedings, reveals that Division Bench of this Court, while disposing of the petition, directed the competent authority to decide the case of the petitioner afresh by taking into consideration the provisions of the Act and the judgments passed by this Court as well as Hon'ble Apex Court in CWP(OA) No. 1077 of 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2026:HHC:37825 2019, titled Nitin Kumar vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and another, CWP No. 5090 of 2022, titled Umesh Jaswal and State of H.P. along with connected matter and CWP No. 4299 of 2019, titled Pushpa Devi and others vs. Himachal Pradesh University, by passing speaking and reasoned order on or before 30.06.2026, after giving opportunity of being heard, if so desired. Since, despite there being specific direction to do the needful, as taken note hereinabove, respondents have failed to do so, 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 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 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 in terms of order/judgment dated 11.05.2026 passed by Division Bench of this Court positively 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 3 2026:HHC:37825 law, is taken towards implementation of the judgment/ order, sought to be executed in the instant proceedings. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge September 07,2026 (shankar)