IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Execution Petition (T) No.6 of 2025 Date of Decision: 07.05.2025 _______________________________________________________ Angrej Singh & others …….Petitioners Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & others … Respondents ______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioners: Ms. Deepmala Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C.Verma, Additional Advocate Generals and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. _______________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): While placing on record communication dated May, 2025, issued under the signatures of Director School Education, Himachal Pradesh, learned Additional Advocate General states that in terms of mandate contained in the judgment sought to be executed, last pay drawn by the petitioners in privately managed 95% aided F.D. Senior Secondary School, Mundmiyani, District Kangra, Public Middle School Attara (Middle Wing), District Kangra and Public High School Harnota (Middle Wing), District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh at the time of taking over their services in Elementary Education has been protected. He further submitted that concerned Principal/ Headmaster/ In-charge of GSSS/GMS of Himachal Pradesh has been 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 further directed that consequential benefits regarding monetary benefits qua the petitioners be released as per the instructions issued by Finance Department Himachal Pradesh vide letters dated 07.01.2012 and 17.09.2022. It has been categorically stated in the aforesaid communication, which is taken on record that since judgment dated 22.12.2023 passed by this Court in CWPOA No.4320 of 2019, titled as Angrej Singh and others vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others has been complied with by the respondent- Department within 90 days as specified by the Court by way of passing detailed speaking order dated 14.03.2024, respondent- Department is not liable to pay interest upon the arrears due to timely compliance of the judgment in respect of petitioner No.1. 2. Since, it is quite apparent from perusal of aforesaid communication that in terms of the mandate contained in the judgment sought to be executed, pay of the petitioners has been protected and order with regard to release of consequential benefits stands passed, there appears to be no reason to keep the present petition alive and accordingly same is disposed of, with a direction to the respondents to ensure that consequential benefits, if any, in terms of aforesaid compliance, if not released, shall be released expeditiously, preferably within a period of four months. Similarly, all the petitioners save and except petitioner No.1, shall be entitled to interest on delayed payment because judgment in their case has been admittedly complied with after prescribed period of 90 days. 3 Liberty is reserved to the petitioners to file appropriate proceedings in appropriate Court of law qua the surviving grievance, if any. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge May 07,2025 (shankar)