PRITTAM CHAND Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of present execution petition, prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioners for implementation and execution of order dtd. 15/11/2016, passed by the erstwhile HP State Administrative Tribunal in OA No. 5818 of 2016, whereby direction was issued to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners in view of the principle laid down by this Court in judgment dtd. 30/11/2010 passed in CWPT No. 6037 of 2008, H.P. Rajkiya Prathmik Adhyapak Sangh v. State of H.P. and Anr., Since respondents failed to comply with the aforesaid direction, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings.

(2.) Pursuant to notice issued in the instant proceedings, respondents-State has filed reply, perusal whereof reveals that pursuant to direction contained in the judgment sought to be executed, case of the petitioners was considered, but since he was not found similar to the Rajkiya Prathmik Adhyapak Sangh's case (supra), his prayer was rejected.

(3.) Though learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that consideration order passed by the respondents in purported compliance of judgment alleged to have been violated is not in conformity with the judgment passed by this Court, but this Court in the instant proceedings cannot go into the correctness of the order passed in the purported compliance of judgment sought to be executed, which are only meant for the execution of the judgment sought to be executed. Since there was specific direction to consider the case of the petitioners and respondents in compliance of aforesaid direction have already considered the case of the petitioners, appropriate remedy, if any, for the petitioners is to file substantive writ petition, laying therein challenge to consideration order, if same is not in accordance with law as well as judgment sought to be executed.