Himachal Pradesh High Court
EX.P./2085/2026 of BHUP SINGH CHAUHAN Vs THE HRTC AND OTHERS on 21 September 2026
COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Execution Petition No.2085 of 2026 Date of Decision: 21.9.2026 _____________________________________________________________________ Bhup Singh Chauhan and Ors. ……...Petitioners Versus HRTC and Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Execution Petition No.2085 of 2026
Date of Decision: 21.9.2026 _____________________________________________________________________ Bhup Singh Chauhan and Ors. ……...Petitioners Versus HRTC and Ors.
…....Respondents
Coram
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?
For the Petitioner: Mr. Mandeep Chandel, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. Dixit Sahotra, Advocate vice Mr. Deepak Sharma, Advocate. ___________________________________________________________________________
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 8.10.2025, passed by this Court in CWP No.4953 of 2025, titled Bhup singh Chauhan and Ors. v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Anr., whereby afore petition came to be disposed of with a direction to the respondents/competent authority to ensure that amount payable to the petitioners, on account of arrears of enhanced pension is released within six weeks. Since no action, whatsoever, came to be taken at the behest of
2 the respondents pursuant to aforesaid direction, petitioners have approached this Court in the instant proceedings.
2. Learned counsel for the respondents, states that though he has 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 counsel representing the respondents, 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 petitioners would be at liberty to get the present petition revived so that appropriate action in accordance with law is taken towards implementation of the order/judgment.
September 21, 2026
(Sandeep Sharma), (manjit)
Judge