Dr. Pankaj Kumar Lakhanpal & Ors. Vs. State of H.P. & Ors. CMP No.12259 of 2025 in CWP No.1599 of 2020 04.07.2025 Present: Mr. Shrawan Dogra, Senior Advocate with Mr. Satish Sharma and Mr. Devender K. Sharma, Advocates for the petitioners/non-applicants. Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Navlesh Verma, Ms. Sharmila Patial, Additinoal Advocates General, Mr. Raj Negi, Deputy Advocate General for the applicants. CMP No.12259 of 2025 Learned Advocate General states that by medium of this application, he is not seeking any modification of the judgment, but is only seeking extention of time. Records of the case would go to indicate that as many as six Execution Petitions had to be filed for getting the judgment implemented. Not only that, as many as 13 adjournments had been sought by the State to file its reply and thereafter, a specific undertaking was given by the respondents-State before the learned Single Judge of this Court exercising contempt jurisdiction in COPC No.307 of 2023, as is evident from order dated 15.03.2024, which reads as under:- “Pursuant to order dated 07.03.2024, Sh. Devesh Kumar, Principal Secretary (Finance), Sh. Rakesh Kanwar, Secretary (Animal Husbandry) and Sh. Pradeep K. Sharma, Director (Animal Husbandry) have come present. Principal Secretary Finance, named hereinabove, states that though respondent- State is under obligation to pay the arrears in terms of the judgment alleged to have been violated, but on account of financial constraints, it may not be possible to discharge the liability in one go. He states that 50% of the liability shall be discharged within a period of four days and remaining 50% shall be paid in two installments of 25% each within a span of eight moths i.e. first installment of 25% shall be paid after four months i.e. on or before 31st July 2024 and second installment of 25% shall be paid on or before 30th November, 2024. 2. Having taken note of aforesaid undertaking given by Principal Secretary (Finance), there appears to be no justification to keep the present proceedings alive and accordingly same are closed. Notices issued to the respondents are hereby discharged. It is clarified that in case undertaking given to this Court is not honoured, petitioners would be at liberty to get the present proceedings revived, so that appropriate action, in accordance with law, is taken against the erring officials.” Admittedly, the aforesaid order has attained finality between the parties and in such circumstances, it is not open for this Court to tinker with the said order much less, modify the same by extending the timeframe set out in the aforesaid order. Resultantly, there is no merit in the application and the same is dismissed. ( Tarlok Singh Chauhan ) Judge ( Virender Singh ) July 04, 2025 Judge (Gaurav Thakur)