IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Execution Petition No.1962 of 2026 Date of Decision: 09.09.2026 _______________________________________________________ Pritam Chand …….Petitioner Versus The Himachal Road Transport Corporation & Anr. … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Ashwani K. Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Virender Singh Kanwar, 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 05.03.2026 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No.2436 of 2026, titled as Pritam Chand Vs. Himachal Pradesh Road Transport Corporation and another 2. Careful perusal of aforesaid order/judgment, sought to be executed in the present proceedings, reveals that Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, while disposing of the writ petition filed by the petitioner, directed the petitioner to file a detailed representation with regard to the issue raised in the writ petition to the competent authority within four weeks. Co-ordinate 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2

Bench of this Court further directed the competent authority to decide the aforesaid representation of the petitioner within twelve weeks. Since, despite there being specific direction to do the needful, as taken note herein above, respondents failed to comply with the judgment, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings. 3. Mr. Virender Singh Kanwar, learned counsel for the respondents, 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 four weeks from today. 4. Consequently, in view of the afore undertaking given by learned counsel for the respondents, 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 four weeks 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 law, is taken towards implementation of the judgment/ order, sought to be executed in the instant proceedings. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge September 09, 2026 (sunil)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Execution Petition No.1962 of 2026 Date of Decision: 09.09.2026 _______________________________________________________ Pritam Chand …….Petitioner Versus The Himachal Road Transport Corporation & Anr. … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Ashwani K. Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Virender Singh Kanwar, 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 05.03.2026 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No.2436 of 2026, titled as Pritam Chand Vs. Himachal Pradesh Road Transport Corporation and another 2. Careful perusal of aforesaid order/judgment, sought to be executed in the present proceedings, reveals that Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, while disposing of the writ petition filed by the petitioner, directed the petitioner to file a detailed representation with regard to the issue raised in the writ petition to the competent authority within four weeks. Co-ordinate 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2

Bench of this Court further directed the competent authority to decide the aforesaid representation of the petitioner within twelve weeks. Since, despite there being specific direction to do the needful, as taken note herein above, respondents failed to comply with the judgment, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings. 3. Mr. Virender Singh Kanwar, learned counsel for the respondents, 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 four weeks from today. 4. Consequently, in view of the afore undertaking given by learned counsel for the respondents, 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 four weeks 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 law, is taken towards implementation of the judgment/ order, sought to be executed in the instant proceedings. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge September 09, 2026 (sunil)