IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Execution Petition No.38/2012. In CWP No. 3859/2009 Date of decision: 21.05.2013 Sunita Devi …. Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others. ……Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting ?1 . For the Decree Holder : Mr. Anuj Nag, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Assistant Advocate General for respondents No. 1 to 3 Mr. Varun Chandel, vice counsel for respondent No. 4 Mr. Navlesh Verma, Advocate, for respondent No. 6. None for respondent No.5. Surinder Singh, J. (Oral) The instant Execution Petition has been filed to implement the judgment passed by this Court in CWP No. 3859 of 2009 decided on 12.12.2011. The operative part of the judgment reads as under:- “7. Thus, in view of the above peculiar circumstances, respondents are hereby directed to 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? - 2 - consider the case of the petitioner sympathetically and fifth respondent shall recommend the case of the petitioner for family pension to the Life Insurance Corporation, as per the Scheme within a period of one month on the receipt of the premium/contribution by the petitioner.” 2. It is contended that the Life Insurance Corporation have turned down the reference made by the 5th respondent vide annexure P3 dated 3.4.2012. Though reply by respondent No. 6 to this Execution Petition stands filed but the impugned judgment cannot be executed against them as they were not a party and the direction was to the extent that 5th respondent, i.e. Adarsh High School, Ghumarwin shall recommend the case of the petitioner for family pension, as per scheme, within the stipulated period. In my opinion, the impugned judgment cannot be executed against the Life Insurance Corporation as they being not a party to the main petition. However, the petitioner is at liberty to seek appropriate remedy against the Corporation aforesaid, if permissible under the law. The present Execution petition stands dismissed, as 5th respondent has already complied with the judgment as directed. May 21, 2013 (Surinder Singh), (cm) Judge.