2024:HHC:12852
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Execution Petition No.204 of 2024
Date of Decision: 30.11.2024
_____________________________________________________________________
Ram Parshad and Others ……...Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. and Others
…....Respondents
Coram
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?
For the Petitioners: Mr. Vineet Vashishta and Mr. K.C.
Chauhan, Advocates.
For the respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Additional Advocate General,
for respondent No.1/State.
Ms. Aashima Premy, Advocate, vice Mr.
Raman Jamalta, Advocate, for respondent
No.4.
___________________________________________________________________________
Sandeep Sharma, J.
(Oral)
By way of present execution petition, prayer has been
made by the petitioners for implementation and execution of
order/judgment dated 07.09.2017, passed by erstwhile Himachal
Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Camp at Mandi, in OA No.162/2016,
titled Ram Prashad and Others Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and
Others, whereby learned H.P. Administrative Tribunal while disposing
of the Original Application, directed respondents/competent authority
that on finding the petitioners to be similarly situate, benefit of order,
as mentioned in the order, shall also be extended to them within three
months. Since no action, whatsoever, came to be taken at the behest
2024:HHC:12852
2
of the respondents pursuant to aforesaid direction, petitioner has
approached this Court in the instant proceedings.
2. Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General and
Ms. Aashima Premy, Advocate, vice Mr. Raman Jamalta, Advocate,
while putting in appearance on behalf of the respondent No.1 and
respondent No.2, respectively, state that though they have every
reason to presume and believe that by now, order/judgment sought to
be executed, must have been complied with in its totality, but if not,
same would be definitely complied with within a period of two weeks
from today.
3. Consequently, in view of the fair stand adopted by the
learned Additional Advocate General and learned counsel representing
respondent No.2, this Court sees no reason to keep present petition
alive and accordingly, same is disposed of with direction to the
respondents to do the needful in terms of judgment sought to be
executed, within a period of two weeks, failing which petitioners would
be at liberty to get the present petition revived so that appropriate
action in accordance with law is taken towards the implementation of
.
the order/judgment
November 30, 2024 (Sandeep Sharma),
Judge
(Rajeev Raturi)