IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Execution Petition No.623 of 2024 Date of Decision:- 18.08.2026 Vijay Gautam ....Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and another ....Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner : Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, Senior Advocate with Mr. C.D. Negi, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Gobind Korla, Additional Advocate General. G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice (Oral). The petitioner seeks execution of the order dated 07.07.2022 (Annexure E-1), passed in CWP No.2489 of 2019, titled as Sh. Rakesh Kumar and others Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, which was disposed of with the lead case CWP No.842 of 2017, titled as State of Himachal Pradesh and others Vs. Sardari Lal and another. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2. The case of the petitioner is that, as per the directions issued by the Coordinate Bench of this Court, the pay-scale of the petitioners drawn by them as Lecturers, at the time of their promotion as Headmaster/Headmistress shall first remain protected. 3. Accordingly, it is submitted that after the said order, the fixation was done on 18.04.2023 as such which is being taken into account by the Mediator also and came to the conclusion that the benefit of ACP had been wrongly granted earlier on 08.07.2014 and the same is not admissible to him and thus his pay has been proposed to be fixed at Rs.24000/- + Grade Pay of Rs.5400/- instead of Rs.24800/- + Grade Pay of Rs.5400/- which was one he was allegdly drawing at the time of promotion to the post of Headmaster. 4. It is to be noticed that the matter was referred to the Mediator on 30.05.2025 and again on 04.07.2025. The Mediator subsequently submitted a report on 02.09.2025. Since the counsel for the petitioner has raised objections regarding the order dated 18.04.2023 (Annexure-A), we deem it fit to grant liberty to the petitioner to challenge the said communication, which formed the basis of the report before 3 the Mediator, as the order was apparently passed at a belated stage, without giving any notice to the petitioner. Resultanlty, the execution petition stands disposed of, with liberty to the petitioner to challenge the said communication, in accordance with the law. 5. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall stand disposed off. (G.S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice (Bipin Chander Negi) Judge 18th August, 2026 (Munish Thakur)