Jarnail Singh vs. HPSEBL Exe. Petition No.35 of 2023 07.01.2025 Present: Mr. M.L. Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Vandana Misra, Advocate, for the respondent. Vide order dated 15th October, 2024 this Execution Petition bearing No. 35 of 2023 was disposed of with observation that petitioner shall be entitled for the benefits of daily wage service, including work-charge, regularization etc. by treating him in continuous daily wage service with 240 days in each calender year since 01.01.1998. Learned counsel for respondents has submitted that Execution Petition was filed for implementation of judgment dated 27th November, 2019 passed in LPA No. 323 of 2011 whereby judgment dated 5th April, 2011 passed in CWP No. 5374 of 2010 was modified by the Division Bench with observation that petitioner shall be entitled for seniority w.e.f. December 26, 2001 in accordance with law. She has further submitted that vide order dated 9th December, 2020 passed in Review Petition No. 42 of 2020, judgment dated 27th November, 2019 passed in LPA No. 323 of 2011 was corrected with observation that date “December 26, 2001” should have been “August 20, 1999”. In aforesaid circumstances, it has been submitted by learned counsel for respondents that all benefits w.e.f. 20th August, 1999, as admissible in terms of judgment passed in LPA No. 323 of 2011, have been extended to the petitioner. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that benefits of service rendered by the petitioner after August 1999 are to be governed vide judgment dated 27th November, 2019 passed in LPA No. 323 of 2011 but service rendered by him prior to that, completing 240 days in calender year 1998, are to be governed vide order dated 12th October, 2001 passed in OA No. 15 of 2000 whereby Erstwhile H.P. State Administrative Tribunal had ordered that period between the re-engagement and dis-engagement will be counted for seniority but without back wages. It has been further submitted that aforesaid order was not assailed by the respondents- Board but was accepted and therefore, petitioner is entitled for benefits by treating him in service w.e.f. 1.1.1998. Though it appears that petitioner was engaged on 1.1.1998 and thereafter, he had worked for more than 240 days in said calender year. However, in LPA No. 323 of 2011, the consequential benefits have been granted by Court not from the initial date of appointment or from the year wherein petitioner had completed 240 days in the calender year but only w.e.f. 20th August, 1999 i.e. the date of termination of petitioner as also recorded in order dated 12th October, 2001 passed in OA No. 15 of 2000. We being the Executing Court cannot go beyond the scope of order, sought to be implemented by petitioner. After passing of order dated 9th December, 2020 in Review Petition No. 42 of 2020 the date from which the petitioner shall be entitled for benefits has been fixed as August 20, 1999, but petitioner has not agitated the same at any point of time by putting forth his claim for entitlement of benefits from 1st January, 1998. It has been submitted by learned counsel for respondents that judgment passed in favour of petitioner stands implemented by extending him the benefits in terms of judgment dated 27th November, 2019 passed in LPA No. 323 of 2011 read with order dated 9th December, 2020 passed in Review Petition No. 42 of 2020. In view of above, present petition is closed, however, with liberty to petitioner that in case benefits have not been extended w.e.f. 20th August, 1999, petitioner shall have the liberty to file fresh Execution Petition for getting the benefits in terms of judgment dated 27th November, 2019 passed in LPA No. 323 of 2011 read with order 9th December, 2020 passed in Review Petition No. 42 of 2020 and also to avail any appropriate remedy as available under law for redressal of the grievance(s), if any, still survives. (Vivek Singh Thakur) Judge January 07, 2025 (Ranjan Sharma) (ms) Judge