( 2025:HHC:16722 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWPOA No. 6868 of 2020 Date of decision : 29.05.2025. Devender Singh (deceased) through his LRs ...Petitioners. Versus State of H.P. & Ors. ...Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioners : Mr. Nishant Khidtta, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Gautam Sood, Deputy Advocate General. Satyen Vaidya, Judge: The instant petition has been filed for the following substantive reliefs:- “i) That the impugned orders dated 17.04.2019 (Annexure A-18), order dated 04.05.2017 (Annexure A-9), order dated 06.05.2017 (Annexure A-10), order dated 09.05.2017 (Annexure A-11) and 11.05.2017 (Annexure A-12) may kindly be quashed and set aside and respondents may kindly be directed to give all benefits such as pay fixation seniority and arrears of pay w.e.f. 01.01.2007 as per the judgment of the Hon’ble High 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? -2- ( 2025:HHC:16722 ) Court dated 15.5.2014 (Annexure A-6) and office order dated 20.09.2014 (Annexure A-14) and as per the judgment passed in Rakesh Kumar’s case on which date applicant complete 8 years service . ii) That the respondent may kindly be directed to produce the entire record pertaining to the case of the applicant. iii) That any other order which are deemed just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be passed in favour of the applicant.” 2. Original petitioner was a daily wager, who eventually became eligible for the benefit of regularization of his services in terms of the regularization policy of the State Government. Having not received due consideration of his grievance, petitioner had approached this Court by way of CWP No.7452 of 2013. A Coordinate Bench of this Court decided the said writ petition, vide order dated 15.05.2014 in following terms: “Since, as per letter dated 20.9.2014, petitioner had completed 8 years’ continuous service with 240 days in each calendar year on 1.7.2007, respondents are directed to regularize the petitioner with all consequential benefits. 2. In view of this, the present petition is disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any. No costs.” 3. Initially, the Divisional Forest Officer, Nahan Forest Division, Nahan, H.P. vide Office Order dated -3- ( 2025:HHC:16722 ) 29.01.2015, regularized the services of petitioner w.e.f. 01.01.2007 by creating a supernumerary post in the pay scale of Rs.4900-10680/- + 1300/- G.P. However, the same office came up with another Memorandum dated 04.05.2017 declaring the date of regularization of the services of petitioner as 05.11.2009 instead of 01.01.2007. The pay of the petitioner was re-fixed. Thereafter, the petitioner had been fighting for his claim before various authorities of the respondents as also the Courts. The petitioner retired on 30.04.2017 and is stated to have died now. 4. Unfortunately, the petitioner could not see final culmination of his grievance during his lifetime, though the issue raised by him was very simple. 5. Now, the respondents are again trying to justify their stand of changing the date of regularization of the petitioner and also re-fixing his pay, despite the fact that the order passed by this Court in CWP No.7452 of 2013 dated 15.05.2014 has attained finality. The respondents have not been able to show to the Court that the aforesaid order was either reversed, modified or varied at any stage. -4- ( 2025:HHC:16722 ) That being so, the respondents cannot be heard to say beyond the command of the aforesaid order. They are bound to comply with the same. 6. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. Annexure A-18 is quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to implement the judgment dated 15.05.2014 passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No.7452 of 2013 in letter and spirit, within six weeks from the date of passing of this judgment. 7. The petition is accordingly disposed of, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. 8. It is made clear that the observations made hereinabove shall be construed only in the peculiar facts of this case. (Satyen Vaidya) Judge 29th May, 2025 (Rupsi)