1 2025:HHC:34568 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Ex. Petition No. 48 of 2025 Date of decision: 08.10.2025 ________________________________________________________ Amar Chand @ Amru Ram …..Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & others …Respondents ________________________________________________________ Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 ________________________________________________________ For the Petitioner: Mr. C.N. Singh, Dr. Nidhi Singh, Mr. Devender Kumar Sharma and Mr. Anshul Gandhi, Advocates. For the Respondents: Mr. Pranay Pratap Singh Additional Advocate General. G.S. Sandhawalia , Chief Justice (Oral) The present Execution Petition has been filed seeking benefits of the judgment passed by the Co-ordinate Bench, dated 06.09.2023 in CWPOA No. 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 5723 of 2020, titled Amar Chand Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & others, whereby directions have been issued to the respondents-State to extend benefits of the judgment dated 28.7.2010, passed by this Court in CWP No. 2735 of 2010, titled Rakesh Kumar Vs. State of H.P. and others, to the petitioner by conferring work-charge status upon him w.e.f. 01.01.2002 on completion of 8 years of daily wage service with 240 days in each calendar year since 1994 with all consequential benefits. The entire service of the petitioner as work-charge employee was also directed to be counted for the purpose of pension. Necessary orders to extend the said benefits were ordered to be issued within two months from the date of the order. 2. Learned Counsel for the State has placed on record the order dated 01.08.2025 issued by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Shimla, whereby in sum and substance, the judgment passed in SLP(C) 3 No.23016 of 2023 [Civil Appeal No.1595 of 2025] titled the State of H.P. and others vs. Surajmani, dated 06.02.2025, had been taken into consideration and directions had been issued to grant notional benefits to all the daily wage employees. The necessary orders were thereafter passed on 04.08.2025 by the Divisional Forest Officer, Forest Division, Karsog, HP, wherein the employee as such has been granted the benefits of work-charge status on the analogy of Surajmani’s case (supra) w.e.f. 01.01.2002 on notional basis. The pension case of the petitioner has accordingly been prepared and sent. 2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently submitted that his case was decided prior to the aforesaid judgment and has attained finality and, therefore, the State is not justified in granting notional benefits contrary to the directions passed by the Co- ordinate Bench. It is submitted that the Executing Court 4 as such is bound by the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench and cannot go beyond the same. 3. We are not in agreement as such with the argument raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. 4. It is a matter of fact that the order in Surajmani’s case (supra) has further been reiterated in SLP (C) Diary No.11170 of 2024 titled State of H.P. and others vs. Janak Dev Sharma, dated 26.05.2025, arising out of CWP No.1180 of 2022, titled Janak Dev Sharma Vs. State of H.P. and others. The relevant observations made by the Apex Court in the said judgment read as under:- "5. It is experienced that despite passing the judgment in Surajmani (supra) which is in rem, but in view of the separate orders passed by the High Court, several special leave petitions are being filed by the State. Considering the same, it is to be expressed that in our view, when a judgment in rem has been passed, it would apply mutatis mutandis in all cases having similar facts and filing 5 separate special leave petitions is in futility. The State may take note of this fact and do the needful." 5. Once the law has been declared by the Apex Court, it cannot be said that the law is to be applied prospectively. The declaration as such is specific and the Apex Court in the subsequent judgment has clarified that only notional benefits have to be given and the judgment in Surajmani’s case (supra) has to be applied. Therefore, once the position of law has been declared by the Apex Court, this Court in execution proceedings will not give the relief against what has been laid by the Apex Court. Thus, we do not find any force in the argument as such raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. 6. In such circumstances, the State has been bound down to give the benefits on notional basis, no fault can be found in the order passed by the respondents. 6 7. Reference has been made to various other orders passed by this Court, whereby arrears had been given upto three years and the matters were further carried unsuccessfully upto the Apex Court by the State. It is to be noticed that all the said orders were passed before 26.05.2025, wherein the matter was clarified by the Apex Court in Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No(s).11170 of 2024, titled The State of H.P. & Ors. Versus Janak Dev Sharma, decided on 26.05.2025. Thereafter a consistent view as such was taken that only notional benefits are permissible. 8. Accordingly, the Execution Petition stands disposed of in the above terms. 9. However, Shri Tek Ram Sharma, learned Standing Counsel for the Accountant General, is directed that pension case of the legal representatives of the deceased employee as such be processed within a period of six weeks from today and pension be released accordingly. 7 10. Liberty is further granted to the legal heirs of the petitioner to revive the execution, in case the needful is not done within the aforesaid period. (G.S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice. October 08, 2025 (Jiya Lal Bhardwaj) (hemlata) Judge.