IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Ex. Pet (T) No.121 of 2025 Decided on: 18.05.2026 _________________________________________________________________ Anupam ....Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Anr. …Respondents _________________________________________________________________ Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua 1 Whether approved for reporting? _________________________________________________________________ For the petitioner: Mr. Anshul Jairath and Mr. Piyush Mehta, Advocates. For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Y.P.S.Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Petitioner seeks enforcement of following directions issued in Anupam Vs. State of H.P. and others2:- “7. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to grant all the benefits to the petitioner as have been granted to the petitioner in CWP No.2218 of 2018, in case the judgment in said case stands implemented. Entire exercise shall be completed in eight weeks from today failing which, the petitioner shall be entitled to interest @ 6% per annum.” 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2 CWPOA No. 8120 of 2019, decided on 01.04.2025 - 2 - 2. Following order was passed in the matter on 27.04.2026:- “Learned Additional Advocate General has placed on record office instructions dated 18.04.2026 from the Director of Higher Education, Himachal Pradesh. In these instructions, respondents have defended their liability for paying the petitioner only to the extent of Rs.19,82,252/- w.e.f. July 2015 to 18.08.2021 in addition to an amount of Rs. 3,84,159/-, which is stated to have already been paid to the petitioner towards GIA. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has raised following three issues in continuity to the observations recorded in the order dated 26.02.2026 passed in this execution petition:- (i) The respondents have not paid the GIA arrears to the petitioner for the vacation period and also for the annual increments. Respondents’ reliance upon office letter dated 18.01.2018 for denying these benefits to the petitioner, has been strongly refuted with the help of Annexure C-2, in terms of which GIA and annual increase would be admissible to the PTA (GIA provided teachers) w.e.f. 01.01.2015. (ii) The judgment in question held the petitioner entitled to grant of interest @ 6% per annum, upon failure of respondents to implement the judgment dated 01.04.2025 within eight weeks. Admittedly, the respondents have implemented the judgment beyond the prescribed period, petitioner is therefore entitled to interest. (iii) Petitioner has been paid GIA only till 16.08.2021. GIA for the remaining period up till now, has not been paid to the petitioner. - 3 - Let the respondents implement the judgment in letter and spirit within two weeks. This shall be the final opportunity for the purpose….” 3. Pursuant to above, respondents have filed the compliance stating therein that arrears of vacation period to the tune of Rs.6,05,333/- have been paid to the petitioner on 05.03.2026. In respect of matter of annual increase to the petitioner, respondents’ pleadings are that ‘no PTA Teacher has ever been given 3% annual increment benefit, hence, the claim of the petitioner is not just and proper’. Regarding petitioner’s claim of interest @ 6% per annum on the ground of delayed payment of grant-in-aid released in her favour, respondents’ stand is that petitioner’s total claim of grant-in- aid up to 16.08.2021 was Rs.21,46,816/-. The interest accrued thereupon at 6% per annum i.e. 21,46,816x6%x1 years=Rs.1,28,809/-. According to the respondents, admissible benefits to the petitioner were Rs. 22,75,625/- against which grant-in- aid, amounting to Rs.23,66,495/- has been released to her, i.e. in excess by Rs.90,870/-. According to the respondents, all benefits due and admissible to the petitioner have been - 4 - released in her favour. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is required to be released grant-in-aid after 16.08.2025. In this regard, stand of the respondents is as under:- “4. That in response to para 2 (iii) of the orders passed by the Hon'ble High Court on 27.04.2026 is concerned, in this connection, it is submitted that the Government had given relaxation to all the in-eligible PTA teachers to enhance their qualification for the post of Assistant Professor till 16.08.2021, but some teachers including petitioner appointed through PTA could not improve their qualification, hence they were not allowed GIA after August 2021 as directed by the Hon'ble High Court in Judgement dated 11.03.2019 passed in CWP No. 2218/2018 titled as Sangeeta Devi & ors. Vs State of H.P.& ors.” 5. In view of above, present execution petition to stand disposed of reserving liberty to the petitioner to seek appropriate remedy for the redressal of her surviving grievances, if any, in accordance with law. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge May 18, 2026 R.Atal