IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Execution Petition No. 94 of 2025 along with Execution Petition No. 95 of 2025. Date of decision: 11 th September, 2025. 1. Ex. Pet. No. 94 of 2025. Sant Ram ...Petitioner. Versus HPSEBL & Anr. ....Respondents. 2. Ex. Pet. No. 95 of 2025. Dole Ram ...Petitioner. Versus HPSEBL & Anr. ....Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner(s): Mr. A.K. Gupta, Advocate and Mr. Bonit, Advocate. For the Respondents: Ms. Shrawan Dogra, Senior Advocate (through V.C.) with Mr. V.S. Kanwar and Mr. Bharat Thakur, Advocates. Satyen Vaidya, Judge (Oral). Heard. 2. Common question involved in both these petitions is whether the respondents have executed the orders passed 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 in these cases by the erstwhile H.P. State Administrative Tribunal? 3. It is revealed from the record that the petitioner in Ex. Pet. No. 94 of 2025, Sant Ram, had filed O.A.(M) No. 567 of 2018 before the learned Tribunal which was decided on 09.08.2018 in following terms:- “4. The applicant claims the benefit of order passed by this Tribunal in OA No. 1304 of 2015, Sh. Nanak Chand & others Versus The HPSEB Ltd., & Another, decided on 24th September, 2015, Annexure A-1. Learned Additional Advocate General Submits that the factual aspects are to be verified by the competent authority. 5. In view of above the original application is disposed of with a direction to the respondents/competent authority to extend the benefit of the order referred to above, if same has attained finality and implemented also to the applicant herein, in case he is similarly situate within three months from today. The applicant shall produce certified copy of this order as well as copy of the order referred to above before the respondents/competent authority within a week.” 4. Similarly, Dole Ram, petitioner in Ex. Pet. No. 95 of 2025 had filed O.A. No. 6516 of 2017 which was decided by the learned Tribunal on 22.12.2017 in following terms:- “4. The applicant claims the benefit of judgment rendered by the Hon’ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh in CWP No. 2398 of 2016, HPSEB Ltd. &aNR. VS. Nanak Chand and others and the 3 connected matters, decided on September 4, 2017, Annexure A-2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the said judgment has become final and implemented also. 5. In view of above, the present original application is disposed of with a direction to the respondents/competent authority to extend the benefit of the judgment referred to above, to the applicant, in case he is similarly situate, within two months from today. The applicant shall produce a certified copy of this order as well as copy of the judgment referred to above before the respondents/competent authority within a week.” 5. The respondents have filed compliance affidavits in both the petitions and have alleged that the orders dated 31.12.2021 and 02.02.2022 in the cases of Sant Ram and Dole Ram respectively have already been passed, as such the orders passed by the learned Tribunal in both the cases have been executed. 6. Perusal of the contents of the compliance affidavits filed by the respondents reveal that the orders were passed by the competent authority in both the cases on the basis of factual situation as existed at the time of passing of such orders. 7. The respondent-board had filed Review Petition in CWP No.2398 of 2016, titled as HPSEB Ltd. & Anr. vs. Nanak Chand & Ors. The said review petition being RP No. 34 of 2018 was allowed by the Division Bench of this Court on 4 16.07.2021. However, finally the writ petition being CWP No.2398 of 2016, titled as HPSEB Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Nanak Chand & Ors., was disposed of along with LPA No. 165 of 2021, titled as State of H.P. & Ors. vs. Surajmani & Anr., by the Division Bench of this Court on 12.01.2023 and the said petition i.e. CWP No. 2398 of 2016 was dismissed. 8. The respondent-board filed another review petition bearing RP No. 97 of 2023 seeking review of judgment passed in Nanak Chand (supra) (CWP No. 2398 of 2016), however, remained unsucessful and the Review Petition No.97 of 2023 was dismissed on 23.08.2023. Thereafter, the respondent- board had assailed the judgment passed by this Court in CWP No. 2398 of 2016 and RP No.97 of 2023 by filing Special leave to Appeal (C) Nos. 10719-10720/2025 which has also been dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide judgment dated 16.04.2025. 9. Having perused the judgment dated 16.04.2025 passed in Nanak Chand (supra) by Hon’ble Supreme Court, it becomes evident that the matter as agitated by respective parties in Nanak Chand (supra) stands finally determined. 10. Indisputably, the orders dated 31.12.2021 and 02.02.2022 were passed by the competent authority at that 5 stage where the respondent board itself had been agitating the validity of order passed by the State Administrative Tribunal in Nanak Chand (supra) by filing CWP No. 2398 of 2016 coupled with Review petition and Special Leave Petition, as noticed above. It being so, the stand of the respondent- board now that since, the orders had already been passed by the competent authority in terms of the directions by the learned Tribunal, the executions petitions stand satisfied cannot be countenanced, for the reason that it is the stand of the respondent-board itself that the dispute in Nanak Chand (supra) had not attained finality when the orders were passed by the competent authority in the cases of petitioners. The fact of the matter is that the order of State Administrative Tribunal in Nanak Chand (supra) has attained finality on passing of judgment dated 16.04.2025 by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (C) Nos. 10719- 10720/2025. 11. The contention raised by the learned Senior Advocate representing the respondent-board that the petitioners were required to challenge the orders passed by the competent authority by filing substantive petition(s) also cannot be sustained for the reasons noticed above. 6 12. Since, the case of Nanak Chand (supra) had attained finality on 16.04.2025 i.e. after passing of orders in the cases of petitioners by the competent authority, their cases are required to be reconsidered by the respondent- board in light of the developments that have taken place after passing of the earlier orders. 13. Thus, these execution petitions are disposed of with direction to the respondents to take fresh decision in the cases of petitioners Sant Ram and Dole Ram in terms of the orders passed by the learned Tribunal after taking into consideration the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 16.04.2025 in SLP (C) No. 10719-10720/2025, titled as HPSEBL vs. Nanak Chand. The respondent-board shall complete the entire exercise in terms of this order within eight weeks from today. (Satyen Vaidya) Judge 11th September, 2025. (jai)