Bhushan Lal Sharma Vs. State of H.P. Execution Petition No.40 of 2024 and LPA No.486 of 2012. Item No. (S-1 & 2) 03.01.2025 Present: Mr. Viplav Sharma, Senior Advocate with Mr. Anirudh Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Ms. Priyanka Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for respondent No.1. Mr. Shubham Singh Guleria, Advocate, for Mr. Vikrant Thakur, Advocate, for proforma respondent No.2. Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sparsh Bhushan, Advocate, for respondent No.3. None for respondent No.4. CMP No.25414 of 2024 in LPA No.486 of 2012. The application under Section 151 of CPC has been filed for extension of time to comply with the judgment dated 29.03.2022 passed in LPA No.486/2012 titled as Bhushan Lal Sharma Vs. State of H.P. & Others. The Coordinate Bench while allowing the appeal, passed the following directions:- “Conclusion The sum total of above discussion is that:- (a) There is no illegality in appointment of respondent No.4/Sh. Anand Blouria to post of AE(C) against the resultant vacancies created due to non-joining of Sh. Rajesh Kumar & setting aside of appointment of Sh. Rakesh Rana. The impugned judgment to this an extent is upheld. (b) The selection/appointment of Sh. Sumit Sood, as AE(C) can not be justified as he being not a dependent ward of ex-servicemen was ineligible for the post in question. Having held this, we cannot also be oblivious of the fact that Sh. Sumit Sood has actually been serving on the post ever since his appointment on 26.02.2005. We are now in the year 2002. He is presently around 47 years of age and has become over-age for the Government employment. In the facts of the case, it will be extremely hard to remove Sh. Sumit Sood/respondent No.3 from the service at this stage. However, the rightful claim of the appellant on the post in question can also not be brushed aside, especially when appointments in question are subject to decision of the case. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we, therefore, direct the respondents to appoint the appellant as AE(C) against the post held by Sh. Sumit Sood. The appellant shall be entitled to seniority from due date will consequential benefits flowing from such appointment. The financial benefits shall be granted to him notionally till the date of actual appointment. We also order that the benefits given to Sh. Sumit Sood pursuant to his appointment as AE(C) in the respondent-department shall not be withdrawn from him. Henceforth, he shall, however, be considered having been appointed against the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) falling to the category of ex-servicemen against first vacancy out of total five posts of Assistant Engineer (Civil), presently stated to be lying vacant. Sh. Sumit Sood shall rank junior to the appellant. The necessary action to comply the above directions shall be completed by the respondent-department within two months from today. Present appeal is disposed of in these terms alongwith pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.” The present application has been filed on 23.12.2024 i.e. after almost three years. It has been brought to our notice that the judgment as such is subject matter of consideration in Special Leave Petition (SLP) No.12514 of 2022 filed by the State in which notice was issued way-back on 26.08.2022. The State has not managed to convince the Apex Court as such to grant any interim order. The order sheet dated 08.08.2023 would go on to show that counsel for the petitioner had taken time. Similarly on 30.01.2024, a request was made by Mr. Karanveer Singh, Advocate, who is stated to be the counsel of respondent No.3-Mr. Sumit Sood in LPA for adjournment. On 01.03.2024, the matter was also adjourned on the ground of illness of concerned counsel. The Learned Advocate General has been trying to convince us for extension of time to execute the order by dilating on the merits of the case which cannot be permitted. The execution application is pending before this Court since 04.10.2024 and various orders have been passed directing the presence of the concerned officials. A perusal of Annexure (R-1) would go on to show that the appointment was only granted on 04.12.2024 in pursuance to the order sought to be implemented and resultantly the writ petitioner joined as Assistant Engineer (Civil). The pay of the petitioner was fixed subject to final outcome of SLP(C) No.12514/2022 State of H.P & Others Vs. Bhushan Lal Sharma. We are also informed that the monetary benefits have also not been paid which are to be paid in the form of all consequential benefits. Thus, it is apparent that the two months period, which was given by passing the direction by Coordinate Bench have been openly flouted and the application for extension of time has only been filed at this belated stage. In these circumstances, we do not deem it a fit case to grant extension of time. Learned Advocate General has tried to convince us that the seniority issue is raising difficulty. We are not concerned with the issue anymore. This Court has already disposed of Latters Patent Appeal and if any person is aggrieved, he has remedy against the said order. It is also pertinent to mention that the writ petitioner is going to superannuate on 28.02.2025 and all the benefits will be held up on account of the non-implementation of the judgment. Accordingly, the application for extension of time is dismissed. Execution Petition No.40 of 2024. In view of the application for extension of time having been dismissed vide order passed today, we are of the considered opinion that the order of Division Bench has not been complied for over a period of two and a half years. The Officer concerned shall remain present before this Court on the next date of hearing, as prima facie contempt has been made out. List for consideration on 10.01.2025. (G.S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice (Jyotsna Rewal Dua) Judge 3rd January, 2025 (munish thakur)