IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No. 992/2011 Decided on:20.10.2011 _____________________________________________ Layak Ram. …Petitioner. Versus H.P.S.E.B. and another. …Respondents. ________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the petitioner : Mr. V.D. Khidtta, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Ankush Sood, Addl. A.G. with Mr. J.K. Verma, Dy. A.G. _____________________________________________________ Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge (oral). Petitioner was regularized on 21.5.2008. He approached this Court by way of CWP No.4422/2010 seeking regularization from earlier date. The Court disposed of the petition on 30.9.2010. Operative portion of the judgment dated 30.9.2010 reads thus: 3. Therefore, for all purposes except back wages, the petitioner is deemed to be in service with seniority. If that be so, in case any person who joined the respondent-Board after the petitioner has been regularized, the petitioner is also entitled to retrospective regularization, by deeming that the petitioner had been in service between 1995 to 2005. 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No 2 Admittedly, the petitioner was reinstated w.e.f. 19.12.2005. Therefore, the impugned Annexure P-8, dated 01.04.2010 is quashed, with a direction to the respondent-Board to consider the matter afresh, in the light of what is held above. However, we make it clear that on account of such regularization, the petitioner will not be entitled to any actual monetary benefits till today and the same shall only be on notional basis. The re-fixation shall be made with effect from today. The needful, as above, shall be done within a period of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment alongwith copy of the writ petition by the petitioner. In case of any delay beyond the period of date of judgment, the petitioner shall be entitled to actual benefits, in which case, the officer responsible for delay will be personally liable for monetary loss caused to the Board. Needless to say that consequent to regularization as above, the seniority will be counted from that date.” 2. Thereafter, case of the petitioner was rejected by the Executive Director (Personnel) on 17.1.2011. However, the fact of the matter is that the earlier order dated 14.5.2008 was superseded and the services of the petitioner were regularized with effect from November, 2002 on notional basis and he was entitled for monetary benefits and re-fixation with effect from 30.9.2010, vide letter dated 18.10.2011. 3. Mr. V.D. Khidtta has brought to the notice of the Court that the judgment dated 30.9.2010 has not been implemented in letter and spirit and the decision 3 to grant monetary benefits has only been taken on 18.10.2011 and thus, the petitioner is entitled to actual monetary benefits due to default clause. 4. Mr. Naresh Sood and Mr. Tarlok Jamwal, Advocates have brought to the notice of the Court that the judgment has now been implemented in letter and spirit and there is no intentional delay in implementing the judgment. 5. We are of the considered view that the judgment dated 30.9.2010 was to be implemented within the period prescribed. However, in the interest of justice, we close this writ petition by holding that the petitioner will be entitled to the monetary benefits with effect from 30.9.2010, but he will be entitled to special compensation of ` 20,000/- to balance the equities for causing delay in implementing the judgment. The arrears with effect from 30.9.2010 with ` 20,000/- be paid, within a period of four weeks from today. No costs. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice. (Justice Rajiv Sharma), Judge. 4.8.2011 *awasthi*