IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Exe. Pet. No. 159 of 2023 Decided on: 30.06.2026 Sh. Pyare Lal … Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others … Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 ___________________________________________________________________ For the petitioner : Ms. Vishali Lakhanpal, Advocate vice Mr. Parav Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Rahul Thakur, Deputy Advocate General. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this execution petition, the petitioner has sought implementation of judgment passed by this Court in CWPOA No. 4207 of 2019, titled as Pyare Lal vs. State of H.P. and others. Said judgment was passed by this Court by observing as under:- “3. Having carefully perused the judgment rendered by this Court in Madan Lal, supra, this Court finds that issue as has been raised in the instant petitions, stands already adjudicated by this Court vide aforesaid judgment and as such, cases at hand are required to be considered and decided in terms of aforesaid judgment. 4. Consequently, in view of the above, present petitions are allowed with the direction that directions as contained in Madan Lal supra, shall mutatis mutandis apply to the case of the petitioners herein and they shall also be granted same relief, expeditiously, preferably within a period of six weeks.” 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2. When this case was listed before this Court on 03.03.2026, the following order was passed:- “Learned Assistant Advocate General has handed over copy of instructions, dated 02.03.2026, in terms whereof, the Court stands apprised that an amount of Rs.2,11,730/- has been released in favour of the petitioner. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the benefits have been restricted three years prior to the filing of the petition, ignoring the fact that the case of the petitioner was disposed of by this Court by ordering that the directions issued by this Court in CWP No.3341 of 2019, titled Madan Lal Sharma Versus State of H.P. and others, shall mutatis mutandi apply to the case of the petitioner and that they shall be granted same relief and in terms of the judgment passed by this Court in Madan Lal’s case, the benefit of revised pay scale was given from due date. Learned Assistant Advocate General submits that he may be granted some time to have instructions in this regard. As prayed for, list on 30.03.2026.” 3. Thereafter, on 30.03.2026, the Court passed the following order:- “Learned Additional Advocate General has handed over instructions dated 02.03.2026 which are taken on record. A perusal thereof demonstrates that instructions are to the effect that the petitioner is entitled to the monetary benefits three years preceding the filing of the first petition by him which was an original application filed before the erstwhile Tribunal. This Court is of the considered view that when this Court while disposing of the main writ petition had directed that the petitioner shall be entitled for the grant of pay scale as from 3 the date of taking over of his services, i.e. w.e.f. 27.08.1990, the State should have assailed the said judgment passed by this Court. Now the judgment passed by this Court dated 04.09.2021 having attained finality cannot be allowed to be overreached by the Authority by assigning the reasons as are mentioned in the instructions. In fact, this not only amounts to overreaching the directions passed by the Court but also amounts to willful disobedience of the Court order. Faced with this situation, learned Additional Advocate General submitted that this case be taken up after two weeks. List on 20.04.2026. In the meanwhile, let the judgment passed by the Court be complied with in letter and spirit, failing which, the officer concerned shall remain present in person in the Court to show cause as to why proceedings under Article 215 of the Constitution of India be not initiated against him/her for willful disobedience of the Court order.” 4. Thereafter, on 26.05.2026, the following order was passed by the Court:- “Learned Additional Advocate General has handed over instructions dated 25.05.2026 and submitted that in terms of the judgment passed in the case of the petitioner, benefits as were conferred upon Madan Lal, stand conferred upon the petitioner also. He submitted that the financial benefits given to Madan Lal were restricted to three years prior to the filing of the writ petition and this has been done in case of the petitioner also. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he may be allowed to have instructions in this regard, as to whether the benefits were restricted to Madan Lal three years prior to filing of the writ petition or benefits were paid to him from the due date. 4 Let needful be done by the learned counsel for the petitioner, within a period of three weeks. List on 30.06.2026.” 5. Today, learned Counsel for the petitioner could not demonstrate that the benefits granted to Madan Lal were not restricted to three years prior to the filing of the writ petition by him. 6. In light of the fact that the judgment now stands complied with in letter and spirit, nothing more is required to be done in the matter and the same is accordingly disposed of as fully satisfied. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge June 30, 2026 (narender)