IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP-T No. 5467/2008 Decided on:22.6.2010 _____________________________________________ Chet Ram and another. …Petitioners. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others. …Respondents. ________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioners : Mrs. Ranjana Parmar, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. P.M. Negi, Dy. Advocate General. _____________________________________________________ Rajiv Sharma, Judge (oral). Petitioners, Chet Ram and Sukh Bahadur Gurung had approached the erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal for the redressal of their grievance by way of TA No. 578/1986. The learned Tribunal passed the following order on 21.6.1994: “The applicants similarly situated as Roshan Lal Dulta shown at Sr. No. 5 in the order dated January 27. 1983 also filed an application which was allowed by the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in TA-597/86 Roshan Lal Dulta Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others decided on July 15, 1994 and the impugned office order dated January 27, 1983, Annexure R-II in 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No 2 that application was quashed. Accordingly, the present application is allowed. The office order dated January 27, 1983, annexure R-I is quashed and the respondents are directed to treat the applicants as having been regularly appointed as UDC (Assistants) with effect from the dates shown against their names in the order dated January 27, 1983 referred to above and give them all the consequential benefits accruing therefrom. The private respondents junior to the applicants who were promoted vide office order dated August 4, 1978 and are continuing against the said posts for sufficiently long time and thus, we would not like to unsettle the settled matters and hesitate to quash their promotion order. The application is allowed in above referred to terms.” 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner for the implementation/enforcement of the judgment dated 21.6.1994 passed in TA No. 578/1986. Mr. R.K. Sharma, learned Senior Additional Advocate General was granted time on 12.10.2009 to seek instructions why the judgment rendered by the erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal in TA No. 578/1986 has not been implemented. Thereafter the matter was taken up on 22.10.2009. Learned Senior Additional Advocate General was again granted time to seek instructions within a week. The matter was again directed to be listed on 6.11.2009. Learned Senior Additional Advocate General again sought further two weeks’ time to seek instructions. Thereafter the matter was adjourned on 23.3.2010. Be that as it may be, the fact of the matter is that learned Senior Additional Advocate General has not 3 sought any instructions. Today when the case is taken up, Mr. P.M. Negi, learned Deputy Advocate General apprised the Court that he has not received any instructions. 3. Once the judgment has been pronounced by the Court of law, it should be implemented by the State in letter and spirit. There is no justification why the judgment dated 21.6.1994 has not been implemented till date by the respondent-State. Mrs. Ranjana Parmar has also apprised the Court that the judgment has been implemented qua similarly situate persons and they have been granted the benefits. 4. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. Respondents are directed to implement Annexure A-5 dated 21.6.1994 in letter and spirit with all the consequential benefits qua the petitioner within a period of four weeks after the receipt of certified copy of this judgment. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma), Judge 22.6.2010 *awasthi*