2026:HHC:37838 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Execution Petition No. 1823 of 2026 Date of Decision: 07.09.2026 _______________________________________________________ Rajesh Kumar & others …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & others … Respondents ______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioners: Mr. Ganesh Barowalia & Ms. Yogita Sharma, Advocates. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocate Generals with Mr. Ravi Chauhan & Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General, for the respondent-State. Mr. Aman Thakur, 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 to implement/ execute the order/judgment dated 25.02.2021 passed by this Court in CWP No. 4551 of 2020, titled Rajesh Kumar and others vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and another. 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 petitioners in terms of judgment dated 15.07.2020 passed by this Court in CWPOA No.231 of 2019, titled 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2026:HHC:37838 Sh. Amar Nath and others vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others within a period of four weeks. Since, despite there being specific direction to do the needful, as taken note hereinabove, respondents have failed to do so, 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 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 25.02.2021 passed by this Court, positively within a period of three weeks, if not already done, failing which, petitioners 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 September 07,2026 (shankar)