ORDER

CMP.M No. 278 of 2022 By way of instant application filed under Order 22 Rule 3 read with Section 151CPC, prayer has been made on behalf of the applicant/petitioner for brining on record LRs of deceased original petitioner Sh. Bhim Singh, who has expired on 05.09.2021, leaving behind his LRs, as detailed para-3 of the application.

2. Since, right to sue survives in favour of persons proposed to be substituted in place of deceased petitioner Sh. Bhim Singh, this Court sees no impediment in accepting the prayer made in the instant application and accordingly, same is allowed. Persons, as detailed in para- 3 of the application, who have otherwise, approached this Court by way of instant application for their substitution, are ordered to be substituted in place of deceased petitioner Sh. Bhim Singh, whose name is, otherwise ordered to be deleted from the array of the parties. Registry to carry out necessary correction in the memo of parties on the basis of amended memo of parties, annexed with the application. Application stands disposed of.

Execution Petition No.129 of 2019

3. By way of instant execution petition, prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioner for execution of order/judgment dated 25.03.2019, passed by erstwhile H.P. State Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 1021 of 2019, whereby Tribunal below having taken note of the statement made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that his case is squarely covered by the judgment dated 06.03.2013, passed by this Court in CWP No. 6167 of 2012, titled Sh. Sukru Ram v. The State of HP and Ors, directed the respondents/competent authority to consider and decide the case of the applicant strictly in light of aforesaid judgment. Besides passing of aforesaid direction, learned Tribunal below further ordered that in case, petitioner is found to be similarly situate to the petitioner in the case of Sukru Ram’s case, he would be extended similar benefit, within a period of forty-five days. Since no action, whatsoever, came to be taken at the behest of the respondents pursuant to aforesaid direction issued by the Tribunal below, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings. 4. Compliance affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, clearly reveals that pursuant to directions contained in aforesaid order dated 25.03.2019, passed by H.P. State Administrative Tribunal, respondents have already passed detailed order dated 24.02.2021, whereby they after having considered the case of the petitioner in light of Sukru Ram’s case, have rejected the claim of the petitioner on the ground that he is not found to be similarly situate to the petitioner in the case of Sukru Ram’s case.

5. Learned Deputy Advocate General while referring to aforesaid order, states that since there was specific direction to consider and decide the case of the petitioner in light of Sukru Ram’s case and respondents have considered and decided the case of the petitioner in light of aforesaid judgment, judgment sought to be implemented in the present case stands duly implemented.

6. Mr. V.D. Khidtta, learned counsel representing the petitioner while refuting the aforesaid submission made on behalf of learned Deputy Advocate General, contends that bare perusal of order dated 24.02.2021, nowhere suggests that respondents have considered the case of the petitioner in light of judgment passed by this Court in Sukru Ram’s case and as such, it cannot be said that judgment sought to be implements, has been implemented.

7. However, having carefully perused the order dated 24.09.2021, whereby respondents in terms of order dated 25.03.2019, passed by Tribunal below, have already considered and decided the case of the petitioner in light of Sukru Ram’s case supra and as such, this Court finds no force in the submission made by Mr. V.D.Khidtta, learned counsel representing the petitioner. Once, there was only direction to consider and decide the case of the petitioner in light of Sukru Ram’s case supra and