IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Execution Petition (T) No.7 of 2025 Date of Decision: 06.08.2025 _______________________________________________________ Om Parkash & Ors. …….Petitioners Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioners: Mr. Surinder Kumar Saklani, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar & Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. _______________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): Careful perusal of reply filed on behalf of respondents clearly reveals that in terms of mandate contained in the judgment, sought to be executed, respondent-department has redrawn the seniority list of Sadar Kanungos and Kanungos of District Mandi. 2. Though Mr. Surinder Kumar Saklani, learned counsel for the petitioners, vehemently argued that petitioners have been wrongly placed below persons namely Najir Khan, Sudarshan Singh, Gian Chand, Devi Singh and Manohar Lal (direct Kanungos), but having perused revised seniority list as it stood on 31.12.2006, this Court is persuaded to agree with Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 Advocate General, that afore persons were appointed prior in time i.e. on 13.05.1983, whereas petitioners herein were appointed as Kanungoos in 1987. However, reply filed by the respondents is silent with regard to monetary benefits, which were also ordered to be released, in terms of mandate contained in the judgment, sought to be executed. 3. Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, states that though reply filed by the respondents clearly reveals that financial/promotional benefits have already been released, but in case same has not been released, it shall be positively released within eight weeks. 4. In view of the above, nothing remains to be adjudicated in the instant petition and accordingly, the same is disposed of. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings in appropriate Court of law, if not satisfied with seniority list prepared by the department, in terms of mandate contained in the judgment, sought to be executed. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge August 06, 2025 (sunil)