2025:HHC:30208 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Ex. Petition No. 934 of 2025 Reserved on: 22.08.2025 Date of Decision: 04.09.2025. Ranjna and others ...Petitioners Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & others ...Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner : Mr. Onkar Jairath, Advocate For the Respondent/State. : Mr. Diwakar Dev Sharma, Additional Advocate General. Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The petitioners had filed a Civil Writ Petition No. 8032 of 2024 titled Ranjna and others vs. State of Himahal Pradesh & others seeking a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to grant them benefits of 3rd ACP on the completion of 14 years of regular service in the cadre of Drawing Master, PET and Shastri from due date i.e. from the year 2012 to 2018 with all 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2025:HHC:30208 consequential benefits in terms of the instructions dated 09.08.2012, 07.07.2014 and 09.09.2014. 2. The writ petition was listed before the Coordinate Bench of this Court on 12.08.2024, and was disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the representation made by the petitioners in light of the judgment passed in CWPOA No. 5536 of 2020 titled Sanjay Kumar vs. State of H.P. & others, along with connected matters. 3. The petitioners made a detailed representation to the respondents, but the respondents failed to make any decision. Hence, the present execution petition seeking a direction to implement the judgment passed by this Court in CWP No. 8032 of 2024 (supra). 4. The State filed instructions asserting that the representation of the petitioners was considered and decided by the department vide order dated 05.12.2024. A similar issue was involved in LPA No. 146 of 2025, titled Hardev Singh & others vs. State of H.P. & others, along with connected matters, in which the Hon’ble Principal Bench of this Court had permitted the petitioners therein to agitate their grievances after the decision of 3 2025:HHC:30208 the matter by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. Therefore, it was prayed that the present petition be closed. 5. I have heard Mr. Onkar Jairath, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Diwakar Dev Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondents/State. 6. Mr. Onkar Jairath, learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that the decision-making authority held that the representation was premature because of the pendency of the matter before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. The order is not as per the judgment of this Court rendered in CWP No. 8032 of 2024, because the respondents were bound to pass an effective order and could not have decided that the representation was premature. Therefore, he prayed that the present execution petition be allowed and a direction be issued to the respondents to take an effective decision on the representation. 7. Mr. Diwakar Dev Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent/State, submitted that the Court had directed the respondents to take a decision, and if the decision is incorrect, the remedy of the petitioners lies in assailing it in appropriate proceedings. The execution petition cannot be used 4 2025:HHC:30208 to compel the authorities to pass a particular decision. Since, the Hon’ble Principal Bench had closed the proceedings in LPA No. 146 of 2025 titled Hardev Singh & others vs. State of H.P. & others, along with connected matters, because of the pendency of the matter before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India; hence, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed. 8. I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully. 9. The relevant part of the order dated 5.12.2024 passed by the Director reads as under:- “That the petitioners are claiming the benefit of new (4-9-14) ACPs on completion of 14 years of regular service in the cadre of C&V by relying upon the order/judgment dated 01-11-2023 in CWPOA No.5536/2020 titled as Sanjay Kumar Vs. State of H.P.& Ors. The petitioners are claiming the benefit of the new ACPs benefit(4-9-14) on the strength of relied upon judgment, which has been assailed by the department before the Hon'ble Apex court by way of filing SLP, which is pending adjudication before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Hence, the representations of the petitioners filed on premature stage are considered and rejected accordingly. 10. A similar order was passed in LPA No. 146 of 2025 titled Hardev Singh (supra), which is quoted in para-4 of the judgment as under:- 5 2025:HHC:30208 “That the petitioners are claiming the benefit of ACP on completion of 4 years of regular service in the cadre of JBT. The directions in the matter have been conveyed by the DEE HP Shimla vide their letter No.EDN-H(Ele)-IV-(B)(6)-1/2024-Misc.Mandi (Court Cases) dated 03.12.2024, to settle the case accordingly. In this context, since the department has assailed the judgment delivered in CWPOA No.5536/2020, along with other connected matters titled as Sanjay Kumar Vs. State of HP & Ors by filing SLP in the Hon’ble Apex Court, and when the CWPOA 5536/2020 titled as Sanjay Kumar Vs. State of HP & Ors. Therefore, after attaining the finality in the Hon’ble Apex Court, further action in the matter will be taken accordingly. Hence, the representation of the petitioner is being considered and rejected accordingly.” 11. Hon’ble Principal Bench held that the cases were rejected on account of the pendency of the litigation before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, and the execution petition was rendered infructuous. The liberty was reserved to the petitioners to agitate their grievances, if any benefit is granted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Sanjay Kumar’ s case (supra). 12. In the present case, the representation has been rejected due to the pendency of the matter before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India; therefore, the petitioners are at liberty to agitate and put forth their grievances, if any, after the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Sanjay Kumar’s case (supra) as per the binding precedent of Hardev Singh (supra). 6 2025:HHC:30208 13. Moreover, there is force in the submission of the learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent/State that a decision-making authority can be asked to take a decision and it complies with the order after taking decisoin. The decision- making authority cannot be asked to take a particular decision because if an authority has the jurisdiction to take a decision, it has the jurisdiction to take a decision rightly or wrongly, and any person aggrieved by the decision has to assail it by resorting to proper proceedings. This position was laid down more than a hundred years ago in Rajah Amir Hassan Khan v. Sheo Baksh Singh, 1884 SCC OnLine PC 13, and it was held that if the Court has jurisdiction to decide the matter, it has jurisdiction to decide the matter rightly or wrongly. It was observed: “The question then is, did the judges of the Lower Courts in this case, in the exercise of their jurisdiction, act illegally or with material irregularity. It appears that they had perfect jurisdiction to decide the question which was before them, and they did decide it. Whether they decided it rightly or wrongly, they had jurisdiction to decide the case; and even if they decided wrongly, they did not exercise their jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity.” 14. This position was reiterated in Ujjam Bai v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 1962 SCC OnLine SC 8: AIR 1962 SC 1621: (1963) 1 SCR 778, wherein it was observed: 41. In Mulkarjun Bin Shidramappa Pasare v. Narhari Bin Shivappa [[1900] L.R. 27 I.A. 216.], Lord Hobhouse, while dealing with an erroneous order of a court, said: 7 2025:HHC:30208 “The Code goes on to say that the Court shall issue a notice to the party against whom execution is applied. It did issue a notice to Ramlingappa. He contended that he was not the right person, but the Court, having received his protest, decided that he was the right person, and so proceeded with the execution. It made a sad mistake, it is true, but a Court has jurisdiction to decide wrong as well as right. If it decided wrong, the wronged party can only take the course prescribed by law for setting matters right; and if that course is not taken, the decision, however wrong, cannot be disturbed.” 42. In an earlier case dealing with the revisional powers of the Court, Sir Barnes Peacock in Rajah Amir Hassan Khan v. Sheo Baksh Singh [[1884] L.R. 11 I.A. 237, 239.] said: — “The question then is, did the judges of the Lower Courts in this case, in the exercise of their jurisdiction, act illegally or with material irregularity. It appears that they had perfect jurisdiction to decide the question which was before them, and they did decide it. Whether they decided it rightly or wrongly, they had jurisdiction to decide the case; and even if they decided wrongly, they did not exercise their jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity”. 43. This principle has been accepted by this Court in cases to which reference will be made later in this judgment. Although these cases were dealing with the decisions of Courts, they are equally applicable to decisions of quasi- judicial tribunals because in both cases where the authority has jurisdiction to decide a matter, it must have jurisdiction to decide it rightly or wrongly and if the decision is wrong the aggrieved party can have recourse to the procedure prescribed by the Act for correcting the erroneous decision.” 15. Therefore, if the petitioners feel that the decision is not correct, their remedy lies in assailing it as per the law and not asking the authority to decide the matter in their favour. 8 2025:HHC:30208 16. Since the direction issued by this Court to consider the representation and take a decision has been complied with, therefore, no further order is required to be passed, and it is now open to the petitioners to take appropriate proceedings to challenge the decision so taken, if aggrieved. 17. In view of the above, the present execution petition is dismissed as satisfied; however, the petitioners are at liberty to take appropriate steps for the redressal of their grievances, if any, pursuant to the decision taken by the respondents or to await the outcome of the decision by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sanjay Kumar’s case (supra) and to proceed thereafter as may be advised. (Rakesh Kainthla) 04th September 2025 Judge (ravinder)