Disposed

Gurdev Singh Minhas v. Hpseb and Ors.

Himachal Pradesh HC3 Apr 2024EX.PT/16/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Execution petition seeking implementation of a Tribunal order directing stepping up of pay at par with a junior. Respondents showed compliance via consideration order dated 04.09.2024 and stepping up of pay from 01.02.2009 on notional basis. Claim for actual monetary benefits was held not maintainable in execution.

What did the court decide?

No substantive relief; application disposed of with liberty to pursue separate remedy for monetary benefits.

Gurdev Singh Minhas Vs Hpseb and Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Himachal Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

Gurdev Singh Minhas Vs.; HPSEBL & Ors

¶2

Ex.Pet.(T) No.16 of 2024

¶3

19.03.2026 Present: Ms. Yogita Dutta, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Anil Kumar, Advocate, for the respondents.

¶4

CMP (T) No.823 of 2024

¶5

Execution Petition (T) No. 16 of 2024, moved by the petitioner seeking execution of the judgment dated 21.08.2018, rendered by the erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal in OA(D) No. 61 of 2016 (Gurdev Singh Minhas Vs. Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board and others), was decided on 03.04.2024 as under:-

¶6

“2. Careful perusal of aforesaid order/judgment alleged to have been violated, reveals that tribunal below while disposing of the original application, directed the respondents/competent authority to consider the respective cases of the petitioners for stepping up of their pay vis-à-vis their junior, Smt. Mahindera Devi, in the light of observations/findings returned in the order sought to be executed, as expeditiously as possible, but in any case not later than three months. Since, despite there being specific direction to do the needful, as taken note above, respondents failed to do the needful, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings.

¶7

-2-

¶8

3. Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Advocate vice Mr. Anil Kumar, while accepting notice on behalf of the respondents, states that though he has every reason to believe and presume that by now aforesaid judgment/ order alleged to have been violated, must have been complied with, but if not, same would be complied with within a period of four weeks from today.

¶9

4. Consequently, in view of the fair undertaking made by learned counsel for the respondents, this Court sees no reason to keep the present petition alive and as such, same is accordingly disposed of with the direction to the respondents to do the needful, positively within a period of four weeks, if not already done, failing which, petitioner would be at liberty to get the present proceedings revived, so that appropriate action, in accordance with law, is taken towards implementation of the judgment/ order, sought to be executed in the instant proceedings.”

¶10

Petitioner has moved this application for revival of the aforesaid execution petition on the ground that the judgment rendered on 21.08.2018 by the erstwhile H.P. Administrative Tribunal, has not been implemented by the State till date.

¶11

2. Respondents have filed reply, conveying that the judgment in question has been duly implemented by them.

¶12

-3-

¶13

3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the case file.

¶14

4. O.A.(D) No.61 of 2016 was moved by the petitioner for stepping up his pay as Senior Assistant, equal to that of his junior Smt. Mahindro Devi. The O.A. was decided on 21.08.2018 with following directions:-

¶15

“12. The above discussion brings me to hold that the applicants are entitled for relief. Accordingly, the original applications are allowed with a direction to the respondents/competent authoritys) to consider the respective cases of the applicants for stepping up of their pay vis-à-vis their junior, Smt. Mahindera Devi, in the light of what has been held hereinabove in this order, as expeditiously as possible, but in any case not later than three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order alongwith copies the aforementioned judgment/order dated May 4, 2011 in CWP(T) No.12469 of 2008 and 05.03.2015 in CMP No.20700/2014, before the said authority(s) by the applicants.”

¶16

Respondents alongwith their reply have placed on record an order dated 04.09.2024, in terms of which, they considered the case of the petitioner in light of directions issued in OA(D) No.61 of 2016. As per the consideration order, petitioner’s pay was stepped up

¶17

-4-

¶18

equal to the pay of his junior i.e. Mahindro Devi Devi w.e.f. 01.02.2009 from Rs.18,700/- to 19,200/- on notional basis vide office order dated 27.07.2019. The financial benefits have been granted to the petitioner with prospective effect. Consequently, petitioner’s pay has also been revised on the stepped up pay.

¶19

Petitioner has not disputed issuance of consideration order dated 04.09.2024 and stepping up of his pay/pension at par with that of his junior Mahindro Devi. His grievance is that he is entitled to actual monetary benefits from the date his pay was stepped up i.e. 01.02.2009.

¶20

5. In exercise of specific jurisdiction towards execution of a decision, it has to be borne in mind that while enforcing the decision, the Court cannot go behind the judgment and grant relief to the petitioner, which has not been granted in the judgment. In case, the petitioner has further grievance with respect to his entitlement to actual monetary benefits consequent upon stepping up of his pay at par with that of his junior, it is for him to seek appropriate remedy in that regard. This relief

¶21

-5-

¶22

cannot be claimed/considered in the execution petition, since no such specific direction was issued in OA(D) No.61 of 2016.

¶23

With the above observations, this application to stand disposed of.

¶24

Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge

¶25

March 19, 2026 (R.Atal)

Gurdev Singh Minhas v. Hpseb and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gurdev Singh Minhas v. Hpseb and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Banka Ram Vs State of Hp and Others

M/S Unix Biotech Vs Hpsebl and Others

Ajay Thakur Vs State of Hp

Suman Sharma Vs State of Hp

Desh Raj Vs State of Hp and Others

Bablu Vs State of Hp