Mukta Sharma versus State of H.P. & ors. Execution Petition No.996 of 2024 [Item No.S-6] 24.07.2025 Present: Mr. Yuyutsu Singh Thakur, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Gobind Korla, Additional Advocate General, for the respondents-State. CMP No.17105 of 2025 The State has filed an application seeking modification/correction of the order dated 25.03.2025, whereby the Coordinate Bench had directed the State to pay interest on the amount of Rs.1,28,171/-, for a period commencing three years prior to filing of the writ petition till the date of payment. 2. It has been averred that since the order was passed in execution and the Executing Court could not go beyond the terms and conditions of the original order passed in CWP No.687 of 2013, titled Mukta Sharma versus State of H.P. & ors., decided on 02.03.2013, which has already been implemented and there is no specific direction to pay interest and therefore, the application for recalling/modification of the said order has been moved. 3. However, a perusal of the judgment under execution would go on to show that it was disposed of in terms of the fact that it was covered by the decision of this Court in LPA No.105 of 2010, titled State of H.P. & ors. versus Rakesh Chand & Others and connected matters, decided on 13.12.2012. The writ petitioner was thus held entitled for similar treatment. 4. The Letters Patent Appeal had arisen out of CWP(T) No.781 of 2008, titled Rakesh Chand and others versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others, decided on 15.06.2010, wherein while granting the pay scale of Rs.4500-7200/- to the petitioners from the initial date of appointment as JBT Teachers on contract basis, the State has also been directed to pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum. The Letters Patent Appeal modified the said order to the extent that the running pay scale was granted from the date of initial appointment, and the petitioners were held entitled to the initial pay scale applicable to JBT Teachers, as revised from time to time. 5. In such circumstances, once the Division Bench did not interfere with the interest element granted by the learned Single Judge and the writ petitioner, as such, was granted the benefit in terms of the judgment in Rakesh Chand. Therefore, we find no plausible reason to permit the modification of the order, which was also passed in open Court. 6. Accordingly, the application is dismissed. The respondents are directed to comply with the directions and release the interest at the rate of 9% per annum within a period of one month from today. (G.S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice (Ranjan Sharma) Judge July 24, 2025 (Shivender/Bhardwaj)