IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA COPC No.522/2026 Decided on: 12.05.2026 Devi Singh …..Petitioner Versus Kamlesh Kumar Pant & Ors. ......Respondents ………………………………………………………………………………… Coram The Hon’ble Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner: Mr. Surender Sharma, Advocate. For the respondent: Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J Petitioner seeks enforcement of the judgment rendered in Devi Singh Vs. State of H.P. & Ors.2 Operative portion of the decision is as under: - “5. The judgment in Om Prakash & Ors. Vs. State of H.P. & Ors3. was in rem and based upon a previous judgment on the subject. The conclusions drawn thereunder were also applicable to the petitioner, who was similarly placed as the petitioners in Om Prakash3. Respondents after re-drawing the seniority list of Kanungos in District Mandi, including that of petitioner on the basis of directions issued in aforesaid judgment, gave consequential benefits only to the petitioners in the said case. Petitioner, senior to the petitioners in Om 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 CWP No. 964/2024 decided on 26.05.2025 3 CWPOA No. 771/2019 decided on 10.08.2022 2 Prakash3, is also entitled to consequential benefits on the basis of re- drawn seniority list, more so, when grant of such benefits will not adversely impact any other incumbent. In view of discussion in para- 4 above, the writ petition is allowed. Respondents are directed to grant the consequential benefits to the petitioner including promotional and financial based upon redrawn seniority list of Kanungos dated 03.12.2022 within a period of six weeks from today.” 2. The writ record reflects that the respondents, as per their understanding of the decision, granted benefits to the petitioner in terms of the seniority list of Kanungos dated 03.12.2012. The petitioner, however, had certain reservations regarding the benefits granted to him; He preferred a representation dated 27.11.2025 (Annexure C-3), seeking consequential benefits, including promotion, which, according to him, had not been conferred from the date on which they ought to have been granted. The said representation was turned down by the respondents on 02.02.2026 (Annexure C-4) with the following observations: - “NOW, THEREFORE, upon perusal of the record and the order dated 26-05-2025 of the Hon'ble High Court, it is observed that the Hon'ble High Court in its order dated 26.05.2025 specifically ordered grant of consequential benefits on the basis of the revised seniority list dated 03.12.2022(Annexure P-6) issued by the Deputy Commissioner Mandi and this office has already complied with the directions of the Hon'ble High Court in letter and spirit by granting all promotional and consequential benefits to Sh. Devi Singh on the basis of the revised seniority list dated 03.12.2022 (Annexure P-6). Further, the relief sought in the representation dated 27.11.2025 is based on an earlier seniority list and the relief on the basis this seniority list was not included and omitted in CWP No.964/2024. The 3 present representationist is now estopped by his own acts and conduct to claim relief on seniority list which ought and might have been staked by him in aforementioned CWP. The present representationist cannot be allowed to approbate and reprobate in the same breath as he has himself relied upon seniority list dated 03.12.2022 (Annexure P-6) and now cannot be allow to take totally diametrically opposite stand. Accordingly, the representation dated 27.11.2025 is not maintainable and is hereby rejected, as the relief claimed is beyond the directions issued by the Hon'ble High Court and beyond the revised seniority list dated 03.12.2022(Annexure P- 6).” In view of the documents on record, it cannot be said that the respondents have violated the directions issued in Devi Singh2. The present is a case where the petitioner claims that the benefits including consequential benefits granted to him by the respondents while implementing Devi Singh2 have not been extended from the dates due to him. The petitioner claims entitlement to the benefits from an anterior date. That being the claim, in the given facts, it is for the petitioner to seek appropriate substantive remedy, in accordance with law, for substantiating his case. Accordingly reserving such liberty to the petitioner, the present proceedings are closed. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge 12th May, 2026 (rohit)