JUDGMENT : Ajay Mohan Goel, J. By way of this petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following relief:- “To hold the petitioner entitled to seniority from the date of his initial engagement on 08.02.1991 and for grant of regularization/work charged status w.e.f 08.02.1996 in accordance with the settlement arrived between the respondent-Board and its employees before the Hon'ble Apex Court as depicted in the judgment of this Hon'ble Court passed in CWP. No.100/1994 ANNEXURE-P/28 with all consequential financial benefits w.e.f 25.06.2012 the date from which the petitioner had been working continuously till the date of his superannuation on 31.03.2022 with interest @ 9% per annum.” 2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that according to the petitioner he was appointed as a Beldar on daily wage basis in Electrical Division, Nalagarh of the respondent- Board on 08.02.1991. His services were terminated on 20.08.1999. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed an Original Application, i.e. O.A.No.15 of 2000 before the erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal. The Original Application was allowed by the learned Tribunal vide order dated 12.10.2021, ordering reinstatement of the petitioner with seniority, but without back wages. It is further the case of the petitioner that after his joining, he was served with one month’s notice on 23.11.2001, for termination of his services w.e.f. 25.12.2001. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner again approached the learned Tribunal by way of O.A. No.3160 of 2001. On 04.07.2006, learned Tribunal dismissed the Original Application for want of jurisdiction. Thereafter, an industrial dispute was raised by the petitioner, which culminated into passing of an Award, dated 07.07.2010, in terms whereof, the Reference made by the appropriate Government to the learned Labour Court was answered against the petitioner. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner approached this Court by way of CWP No.5374 of 2010, which was allowed by the Hon’ble Single Judge in terms of Annexure P/10, dated 05.04.2011, by quashing and setting aside the Award passed by the learned Labour Court and holding that the petitioner was entitled to all consequential benefits w.e.f. 26.12.2001, including back wages. The judgment passed by the Hon’ble Single Judge was assailed by the Board by way of LPA No.323 of 2011. The Letters Patent Appeal was decided by the Hon’ble Division Bench on 27.11.2019 (Annexure P/12). The judgment passed by the Hon’ble Single Judge was assailed by the Board by way of LPA No.323 of 2011. The Letters Patent Appeal was decided by the Hon’ble Division Bench on 27.11.2019 (Annexure P/12). Hon’ble Division Bench in the Letters Patent Appeal modified the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Single Judge to the extent that the petitioner was held not entitled to claim any back wages. Thereafter, for correction of the date of seniority conferred upon the petitioner by the Hon’ble Division Bench, dated 26.12.2001, a Review Petition was filed, which was allowed by the Hon’ble Division Bench on 09.12.2020 and it was ordered that the date 26.12.2001 shall be read as August 20, 1999. It is further case of the petitioner that for execution of the said judgment, the petitioner filed an Execution Petition, which was disposed of on 07.01.2025 and as per the petitioner, in terms of the liberty granted to him in the execution proceedings, he has approached this Court in light of the liberty granted by the learned Executing Court, vide order dated 07.01.2025, read with the order passed in Review Petition by the learned Executing Court, dated 27.03.2025. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner argued that in light of the fact that the petitioner was initially engaged on daily wage basis in the year 1991, he is entitled for seniority from the date of his initial engagement and grant of regularization/work-charge-status, w.e.f. 08.02.1996, in accordance with the settlement arrived between the respondent-Board and the employees before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India as depicted in the judgment of this Court passed in CWP No.100/1988. Learned Counsel also submitted that in light of the fact that the petitioner was entitled for these reliefs in law and as these reliefs were not conferred upon the petitioner in terms of the judgment passed in the proceedings originating from the Reference made by the appropriate Government, therefore, he has approached this Court. Accordingly, prayer was made for issuance of some mandamus directing that the petitioner be held entitled for seniority from the date of his initial engagement, i.e. 08.02.1991, as also regularization etc. 4. Accordingly, prayer was made for issuance of some mandamus directing that the petitioner be held entitled for seniority from the date of his initial engagement, i.e. 08.02.1991, as also regularization etc. 4. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent- Board submitted that the present writ petition is not maintainable, for the reason that as the issue of the date of seniority of the petitioner stood settled in the earlier proceedings filed by the petitioner as well as the Letters Patent Appeal originating therefrom, the petitioner cannot seek any mandamus contrary to the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench in the Letters Patent Appeal. Learned Counsel submitted that the settlement arrived at between the respondent-Board and the employees to which the petitioner is referring to, is not an event which took place after the adjudication of the earlier matters and the settlement was already in existence earlier, but that issue was never raised by him. He argued that the petitioner is not entitled for the reliefs claimed for, as he cannot claim seniority from the date of his initial engagement on daily wage basis and now as seniority stands conferred upon the petitioner in terms of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench in Letters Patent Appeal, he cannot also claim regularization etc. from the previous date. 5. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have also carefully gone through the pleadings in the present case. 6. It is evident from the record that after the petitioner was initially engaged on daily wage basis as a Beldar in the year 1991, his services were terminated in the year 1999. Said termination was held to be bad by the learned Tribunal in terms of order 12.10.2001, passed in O.A. No.15 of 2000 (Annexure P/1), primarily on the ground that while terminating the services of the petitioner, Clause 14 (2) (a) of the H.P.S.E.B. Standing Orders was not complied with. 7. Now incidently, a perusal of said order demonstrates that in the first Original Application filed by the petitioner, he had raised the claim of regularization, which prayer was not pressed by him. 7. Now incidently, a perusal of said order demonstrates that in the first Original Application filed by the petitioner, he had raised the claim of regularization, which prayer was not pressed by him. Therefore, as far as the prayer of regularization which is now again being agitated by the petitioner by way of this writ petition stood put to a quietus in terms of the order passed by the learned Tribunal, dated 12.10.2001, in which, it is categorically mentioned that the second prayer for regularization is not pressed. Thus, apparently, as the petitioner had in the first Original Application filed by him raised the plea and prayer of regularization which was not pressed by him and further, as no leave was sought by him from the learned Tribunal to re-agitate the same, the prayer now being made for regularization before this Court is hit by Order XXIII, Rule III of the Civil Procedure Code. 8. As far as the issue of grant of seniority raised by the petitioner from the initial date of engagement, i.e. 08.01.1991 is concerned, the same is also completely misconceived. This is for the reason that a perusal of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No.5374 of 2010, titled Jarnail Singh Versus The Senior Executive Engineer, HPSEB, decided on 05.04.2011, demonstrates that said writ petition, which was filed by the petitioner feeling aggrieved by the award passed by the learned Labour Court against him, was decided by the Hon’ble Coordinate Bench in the following terms:- “7. In view of the above discussion, the writ petition is allowed, the order Annexure P-9 is quashed and set- aside and it is held that the petitioner is entitled to all consequential benefits w.e.f. 26.12.2001 including back- wages. The arrears of back-wages be paid to the petitioner on or before 31.8.2011 failing which the petitioner shall be entitled to 12% interest on the back- wages. No costs.” 9. Hon’ble Coordinate Bench was, thus, pleased to hold the petitioner to be entitled to all consequential benefits w.e.f. 26.12.2001. Now, in LPA No.323 of 2011, tilted The Executive Engineer,  H.P.  State  Electrical  Division  Versus  Jarnail  Singh,  decided on 27.11.2019, the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court was pleased to modify the order passed by the Hon’ble Coordinate Bench in the following terms:- “17. Now, in LPA No.323 of 2011, tilted The Executive Engineer,  H.P.  State  Electrical  Division  Versus  Jarnail  Singh,  decided on 27.11.2019, the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court was pleased to modify the order passed by the Hon’ble Coordinate Bench in the following terms:- “17. In view of the above, we modify the judgment dated 05-04-2011 passed in CWP No. 5374 of 2010 and hold that the workman shall not be entitled to claim any back- wages. However, the workman respondent Jarnail Singh shall be entitled of seniority w.e.f. Dec. 26, 2001 in accordance with law. Therefore, the judgment dated Apr. 5, 2011 is modified to the extent as mentioned above. The LPA is disposed of in aforesaid terms. All pending applications stand closed.” 10. A perusal of Para-17 of the aforesaid judgment demonstrates that it was categorically mentioned therein by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court that the petitioner shall be entitled for seniority w.e.f. from 26.12.2001. Thus, a specific date was mentioned therein by the Hon’ble Division Bench, as to from which the petitioner was held to be entitled for seniority. In Review Petition No.42 of 2020, decided on 09.12.2020, the date 26.12.2001 was corrected to 20.08.1999. But, fact of the matter remains that as far as the issue of conferment of seniority upon the petitioner is concerned, it stood settled by the Hon’ble Division Bench to be from 20.08.1999. 11. In this backdrop, if one peruses the orders that have been passed by the learned Executing Court on 07.01.2025 and 27.03.2025, it cannot be said that the learned Executing Court was pleased to give any liberty to the petitioner as an overriding effect to the findings returned by the Hon’ble Division Bench in the Letters Patent Appeal. However, it is also settled law that the learned Executing Court cannot go behind the decree, which has to be construed in the present case, is and was to the effect that the petitioner was entitled for seniority w.e.f. 20.08.1999. Therefore, in light of above discussion, obviously the present petition is completely misconceived. 12. However, it is also settled law that the learned Executing Court cannot go behind the decree, which has to be construed in the present case, is and was to the effect that the petitioner was entitled for seniority w.e.f. 20.08.1999. Therefore, in light of above discussion, obviously the present petition is completely misconceived. 12. As far as the issue of settlement arrived between the Board and its employees is concerned, as was argued by learned Counsel for the petitioner that is not an event which took place after the adjudication of the matters by this Court which have been referred to by me hereinabove and nothing prevented the petitioner to raise those issues while the matters were being heard in the earlier round of litigation and raising this stale issue is nothing but an afterthought. 13. In light of above observations, as this Court does not finds any merit in the present petition, the same is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any also stand disposed of accordingly.