( 2025:HHC:22931 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Execution Petition No.140 of 2025 Date of Decision: 12.05.2026 Arvind Kumar ....Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Others ....Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner : Mr. Lalit Kumar Sehgal, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Rakesh Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General. G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice (Oral). The relief is sought for the execution of the order dated 21.07.2016, passed in O.A. No.679 of 2015, titled Sh. Arvind Kumar Vs. The State of H.P. and Others, in favour of the petitioner, whereby the grouse as such was taking over as Lecturer (Commerce) but not in College Cadre but only in School Cadre. 2. Resultantly, the erstwhile Tribunal had quashed set aside the orders which was subject matter of consideration and learned Tribunal had issued directions to the respondents to take over the services of the petitioner as Lecturer (Commerce), 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 College Cadre with effect from the date of taking over of the Durga Chand Memorial Government Degree College, Jaisinghpur i.e. 06.02.2007, within three months. 3. A Review Petition had been filed by the respondents- State which was dismissed on 29.03.2022 (Annexure E-2) and the respondents-State had also chosen to take up the matter to the Apex Court in Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No(s). 32033/2022 which was dismissed on 15.01.2025 (Annexure E- 3). 4. In the meantime, the compliance order was also passed on 19.10.2022 (Annexure E-4), whereby the services of the petitioner were taken over as Assistant Professor Commerce (College Cadre) on contract basis w.e.f. 06.02.2007 subject to the outcome of the pendency of the SLP. 5. In the reply filed by the respondents-State, various pleas have been taken that the petitioner had improved his qualification in the year 2008 i.e. after taking over his services and his appointment was not approved by the Himachal Pradesh University and he had not been recommended for appointment of the College Cadre as per the Government notification. The respondents-State has taken the plea that the State had complied with the directions and the action was taken by the 3 replying respondent according to R&P Rules vide order dated 19.10.2022. 6. We are thus of the considered opinion that the arguments as such now raised that taking over the services of the petitioner on contract basis and not on regular basis is a fresh cause of action. It is open to the petitioner to challenge the same by filing an appropriate proceedings and it is not for this Court to substitute or go beyond the earlier order which is sought to be executed and the said order did not specify as such, since the controversy therein was different and it was not the issue whether it had to be on contract basis or regular basis, but it was only regarding the cadre concerned. 7. Resultantly, we do not find any plausible reason to continue with the Execution Petition. Accordingly, the present Execution Petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid liberty. 8. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall stands disposed off. (G.S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice (Bipin Chander Negi) Judge 12th May, 2026 (Munish Thakur)