Milat Ram And Ors vs State Of H.P. & Anr

Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J

The parties are ad idem that the controversy involved in the instant petition has been set at rest by a coordinate bench of this Court in Ex. Petition

No. 23/2019, titled as Amit Sharma vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & another, decided on 10.4.2019, wherein it was held as under:.

“The question, which falls for consideration in the execution proceedings, is whether or not the judgment dated 30.5.2015, rendered by Division Bench of this Court in a bunch of Letter Patent Appeals, i.e. LPA No.No.237 of 2012 and other connected matters, including CWP No.1321 of 2012, on the basis of decision rendered in LPA No.367 of 2012 vide judgment dated 23.12.2014, has been implemented and if not, what additional relief the writ petitioners are entitled to.

Shorn of the details, suffice to mention that learned Single Judge vide judgment dated 14.11.2011 allowed the writ petition and held that the petitioners shall be deemed to be regular employees of the State Government from the date of their appointment except in CWP No.7376 of 2010, who were deemed to be regular teachers from the dates their colleagues were offered contractual appointment in the year, 2009. Learned Single Judge further directed to grant all financial benefits to the petitioners latest by 31st March, 2012, failing which they were held entitled to 9% interest per annum. The aggrieved State took the matter in a bunch of appeals, which were disposed of by Division Bench on 23rd December, 2014, observing that the appellant-authorities have already considered the writ petitioners and came to the conclusion that they were eligible in terms of an earlier decision of this Court and that the judgment of learned Single Judge already stood implemented, for all the writ petitioners have been duly considered.

It is undeniable that the petitioners have also been considered and declared regular employees, but consequential arrears of pay have not been paid to them. The instant execution proceeding is indeed meant to secure such monitory benefits.

It is also a matter of record that State of Himachal Pradesh preferred SLP (Civil) No.1171 of 2017 in the lead case( State of Himachal Pradesh & another versus Manju Bala) and the same was partly allowed by the Hon’ ble Supreme Court on 24.3.2017 to the extent that though no ground to interfere with the impugned order was found except “to direct that the respondent will not be entitled to arrears of financial benefits.”

It may be true that the State of Himachal Pradesh did not prefer SLP in all the cases, but the fact remains that once the composite judgment of this Court stands modified by the Supreme Court in the lead case i.e. Manju Bala’s case(supra) denying the arrears of financial benefits, it would be totally anomalous for this Court to grant such benefits to the other Teachers/Employees/Steno-Typist, merely because no separate SLPs in their cases were filed. Since the benefits other than arrears of financial benefits have been granted, we are satisfied that this execution petition stands satisfied.”

2 In this view of the matter, the petition is disposed of in terms of the judgment rendered in Amit Sharma's case (supra) and the reasoning given therein shall apply mutatis mutandis to the instant petition. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. The parties are left to bear their own costs.