Sunil Kumar Dhiman vs State of H.P. and Others

Deepak Gupta, J.—This Execution Petition is totally mis-conceived. The Petitioner is working as an Assistant Librarian and by means of this Execution Petition, has prayed that the Respondents-State be directed to comply with the orders of the erstwhile H.P. State Administrative Tribunal dated 29.06.2004 and judgment of this Court dated 24.07.2010.

The order dated 29.06.2004 passed by the erstwhile H.P. State Administrative Tribunal shows that the erstwhile Tribunal accepted the original application of the applicants before it and disposed of the original application in the following terms:

In view of the aforesaid, this original application is finally disposed with a direction to the Respondents No. 1 and 2 to take appropriate decision in the matter for making appointment of the applicants in the cadre of Assistant Librarian (School Cadre) within a period of four months from the date of receipt of copy of order.

Another original application, which was pending before the erstwhile H.P. State Administrative Tribunal, was transferred to this Court and disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court in the following terms:

There is No. reply as yet. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 1st Respondent to appoint the Petitioners with retrospective effect from the date of expiry of the period granted by the Tribunal. The orders, as above, shall be passed within a month from today. All the Petitioners shall be entitled to continuity of service with effect from the date. However, they shall be entitled to the actual wages only from the date of the appointment as above. If the appointments as above are not granted, it is made clear that the Petitioners will be entitled to salary from retrospective date as noted above and the officer responsible for the delay shall be personally liable for the same. It is also clarified that in case the Petitioners have crossed the age of superannuation, they shall be deemed to have been in service from the date indicated above till the date of their superannuation and their retiral benefits be settled accordingly within another three months.

In both the cases, relief was limited to the applicants/ Petitioners in the respective cases. There is No. order of this Court or of the erstwhile Tribunal stating that the benefit of this order is to be given to all similarly situated persons. Therefore, this Execution Petition is not maintainable. It is, however, clarified that in case, the Petitioner want to vindicate his rights by filing independent proceedings, he can do so.

With these observations, the Execution Petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs.