IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Execution Petition No.95 of 2026 Date of Decision: 10.09.2026 _______________________________________________________ Parkash Chand & 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. Rakesh Kumar Dogra, Advocate vice Mr. S.P. Chatterji, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rahul Gathania, Advocate. _______________________________________________________ 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 04.11.2023 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No.5992 of 2020, titled as Parkash Chand & others Vs. HRTC & another. 2. Careful perusal of aforesaid order/judgment, sought to be executed in the present proceedings, reveals that the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, while holding the petitioners entitled to be included in the seniority list of Conductors as per their original 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 seniority in the cadre of Conductors, directed the respondents to extend all consequential benefits to them, including promotion as well as additional increments, as had been extended to their counterparts as well as other Conductors junior to them. 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 one week 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 one week 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 September 10, 2026 (sunil)