RATTAN CHAND Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS execution application is filed by the original writ petitioner. The petition was disposed of vide order, dated 13th January, 2012, directing the respondents to merely consider the representation to be filed by the petitioner. No more and no less. The execution can only be of that order and not of the order passed in the Contempt Petition in terms of Rule 16 of the High Court Rules. There is no provision in the High Court Rules that execution of order passed in Contempt Petition can also be resorted to before the High Court.

(2.) NO doubt, in the contempt petition subsequently filed by the petitioner, the Court, in its order dated 7th September, 2012, has noted that eligible benefits have not been disbursed so far to the petitioner and that may be disbursed subject to availability of budget allocation in the concerned financial year. However, the stand of the respondentsState is that the petitioner has already been paid Rs. 27,929/ which was due and payable to the petitioner for three years' period keeping in mind the provisions of Limitation Act and . .P the decision of the Apex Court on that point. That amount has already been paid. Nothing more is required to be paid to the petitioner.

(3.) AT this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks liberty to take recourse to the other appropriate remedy. No such liberty is required to be given, rather we are inclined to reject the same.