Item No. S-2 Narotam Singh Vs. State of HP & others. CMPs (T) No. 446 of 2025 & CMP (T) 709 of 2025 in OA No. 2407 of 2017 a/w CMP(T) No. 633 of 2025 in Ex. Petition (T) No. 108 of 2024. 02.01.2026. Present: Mr. Vivek Thakur, Advocate, for the non- applicant/petitioner. Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, with Mr. Pranay Pratap Singh, Additional Advocate General, for the applicants/respondents-State. Mr. Prem Chand Verma, Mr. Varun Thakur and Mr. Aakash Thakur, Advocates, for the applicants/proposed respondents in CMP(T) No. 709 of 2025 and CMP(T) No. 633 of 2025 in Ex. Petition (T) No. 108 of 2024. CMP (T) No. 446 of 2025 in OA No. 2407 of 2017 This application has been filed on 05.05.2025, seeking clarification regarding assigning seniority pursuant to the judgment dated 08.12.2017, passed in Original Application No. 2407 of 2017, titled as Narotam Singh Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & others and permission to re-draw the seniority list of Class-IV in Service employees. 2. It is to be noticed that the Co-ordinate Bench as such, while disposing of the Execution Petition (T) No. 108/2024, titled as Narotam Singh Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & others, on 12.11.2024, had passed an order in the open Court directing that compliance be made of the order dated 08.12.2017, passed by the erstwhile State Administrative Tribunal (for short ‘the Tribunal), vide which the Department was directed to strictly adhere to the final seniority list (Annexure R-4), while sending candidates for Veterinary Pharmacist Training Course in future, in accordance with the Recruitment & Promotion Rules holding the field. 3. In the Execution proceedings, the Co- ordinate Bench had found that the respondents had again committed an error by assigning seniority to the juniors of Narotam Singh, over and above him, while complying with the directions of the erstwhile Tribunal, wherein the name of Narotam Singh was directed to be sponsored for Veterinary Pharmacist Training Course against an existing vacancy in the current batch and his prayer for assignment of seniority over and above his juniors, who have already been sent for training, was directed to be considered. 4. It was in such circumstances, that the seniority list which had been drawn as such was quashed by the Co-ordinate Bench and direction was issued to re-draw the seniority list strictly in accordance with the directions passed by the Tribunal. 5. The said course of action has now been objected to, by the State as such on the ground that in the Execution proceedings, fresh seniority list should not have been quashed as such by the Co- ordinate Bench. 6. We are of the considered opinion that once there was no challenge to the initial order of the Tribunal and it was only Narotam Singh who was seeking the benefit of the order, any subsequent act done by the State, which is in violation of the order of the Tribunal, dated 08.12.2017, could have been rectified by the Executing Court, which has been rightly done. 7. The order had been dictated in the open Court and the application was filed after a period of more than seven months, therefore, this application is totally mis-conceived. In such circumstances, we do not wish to entertain this application. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. CMP (T) 709 of 2025 in OA No. 2407 of 2017 & CMP(T) No. 633 of 2025 in Ex. Petition (T) No. 108 of 2024. 8. Similarly, CMP (T) 709 of 2025 in OA No. 2407 of 2017 and CMP(T) No. 633 of 2025 in Ex. Petition (T) No. 108 of 2024, have been filed under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure for impleadment of the applicants as party respondents, by the same 11 persons in both the matters. 9. These applications, at this belated stage, CMP (T) 709 of 2025 in OA No. 2407 of 2017 filed on 24.12.2025 and CMP(T) No. 633 of 2025 in Ex. Petition (T) No. 108 of 2024 filed on 26.11.2025, are not liable to be entertained only on account of the fact that an order was passed in favour of Narotam Singh and therefore, the Director, Animal Husbandry, Himacjhal Pradesh had passed an order on 14.08.2025 that he was bound by the order of the Division Bench of this Court. 10. Resultantly, we are of the considered opinion that these applications are not liable to be entertained in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. Accordingly, both the applications are dismissed. 11. Needless to say that orders already passed, be complied with, within a period of two months from today. (G.S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice. (Jiya Lal Bhardwaj) Judge January 02, 2026 (hemlata)