IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA ON THE 18th DAY OF AUGUST, 2022 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP SHARMA EXECUTION PETITION (TRIBUNAL) NO. 95 of 2022 Between:

MRS. SHANTI DEVI WIFE OF MR.

GUMAN SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE KOTI UTRAU, TEHSIL SHILLAI, DISTRICT SIRMOUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH ….PETITIONER (BY MR. AJEET SINGH SAKLANI, ADVOCATE)

AND

1. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY (EDUCATION) TO THE GOVERNMENT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA-2, H.P. 2. THE DIRECTOR ELEMENTARY EDUCATION, SHIMLA, HIMACHAL PRADESH.

3. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION, NAHAN, DISTRICT SIRMOUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH.

….RESPONDENTS (BY MR. SUDHIR BHATNAGAR, ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL, WITH MR. SUNNY DHATWALIA, ASSISTANT ADVOCATE GENERAL)

Whether approved for reporting?.

This execution petition coming on for orders this day, the Court passed the following:

O R D E R

By way of present execution petition, prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioner for implemrentation and execution of order/judgment dated 11.7.2019, passed by the erstwhile HP State Administrative Tribunal in OA No. 2844 of 2019, titled Jagdish Chand and Ors v. State of HP and Ors, whereby learned Tribunal below disposed of the original application with direction to the respondents to consider case of the petitioner in light of judgment dated 9.4.2015, passed by this Court in CWP No. 5383 of 2014-I, Batti Devi & Ors v. State of HP and Ors, within two months. Since no action, whatsoever, came to be taken at the behest of the respondents pursuant to aforesaid direction, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings.

2. Mr. Sudhir Bhatnagar, learned Additional Advocate General, representing the respondents states that though he has every reason to presume and believe that by now, order/judgment alleged to have been violated 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, 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 alleged to have been violated within a period of two weeks, failing which petitioner 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. o

18^th August, 2022 (Sandeep Sharma), (manjit) Judge