ORDER : 1. By way of instant execution petition, prayer has been made by the petitioners to issue direction to the respondents to execute the judgment dated 22.6.2008 passed by this Court in CWP (T) No. 8902 of 2008 titled Nand Lal vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Others. 2. Precisely the facts of the case as emerge from the record are that by way of CWP (T) No. 8902 of 2008, petitioners herein prayed for following relief: “(i) That the action of the respondents to fill in the vacancies of the years 1999 to 2002 in accordance with the rules may be held void-ibinitio and the respondents may be directed to review DPC which has resulted in passing of the orders Annexure-A5 to A8 may be reviewed and the respondents may be directed to convene DFPC for the posts of Senior Assistants by calculating the year wise vacancies and in accordance with the rules which were in vogue at the time of occurrence of vacancies and thereafter to promote the applicants to the posts of Senior Assistants from the due dates with all consequential benefits.” 3. Coordinate Bench of this Court having taken note of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case titled A. Manoharan and Others vs. Union of India and Others, (2008) 3 SCC 641 , whereby it came to be held that vacancies which arose prior to the amendment of the Rules should be filled up only in accordance with the un-amended Rules, disposed of the petition reserving liberty to the respondents/State to review any promotion granted to any ineligible or unqualified person. 4. After passing of the aforesaid judgment, petitioners filed representations for considering their cases for the post of Senior Assistants keeping in view the fact that persons junior to them were promoted, but respondents-State vide order dated 10.12.2010, rejected the representations, as a result of which, petitioners were compelled to approach this Court again by way of CWP No. 6116 of 2011-G. Learned Single Bench of this court vide judgment dated 21.6.2012 (Annexure E-2), set-aside order dated 10.12.2010 and directed the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners for promotion to the post of Senior Assistant in accordance with law from the date their juniors were considered and promoted. While passing aforesaid order, learned Single Judge categorically ordered that all consequential benefits, if any, other than seniority be also accorded to the petitioners. 5. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with aforesaid direction issued by the learned Single Judge, respondents/State preferred LPA No. 468 of 2012, which came to be disposed of on 10.11.2014, whereby the coordinate Bench of this Court, observed that observation made in paras-8 to 10 of the judgment shall not come in the way of the appellants (respondent-State), in considering the case of the petitioners. 6. Since despite passing of the aforesaid judgment dated 10.11.2014 in the aforesaid LPA, no action was taken by the respondents, petitioners approached this Court by way of COPC No 809 of 2015, praying therein for initiation of contempt proceedings against the respondents for their having willfully and intentionally disobeyed the directions contained in the judgment alleged to have been violated. Coordinate Bench of this Court while directing the respondents to pass fresh consideration order categorically observed that respondents have not gone through the judgment dated 27.5.2010 rendered by the coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP (T) No. 8902 of 2008, wherein court having taken note of the submissions made by the then learned Senior Additional Advocate General reserved liberty to the State to review any promotion granted to any ineligible or unqualified person. Court further observed in the order that respondents were to consider the case of the petitioners in terms of the said judgment and pass consideration order. Vide aforesaid order, court directed the respondent to consider case of the petitioner in light of the judgment dated 27.5.2010, passed by coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP (T) No. 8902 of 2008, titled Nand Lal and Others vs. State of H.P. and Others, however fact remains that aforesaid order was again not complied with and as such, petitioners again approached this court by way of contempt petition bearing COPC No. 21 of 2017, wherein pursuant to directions issued by this Court, the then Chief Secretary, Mr. Vineet Chaudhary and Mr. Sunil Chaudhary, Secretary (GAD & SAD) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, came present in the Court. Vineet Chaudhary and Mr. Sunil Chaudhary, Secretary (GAD & SAD) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, came present in the Court. Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 21.3.2018, disposed of the contempt petition having taken note of the undertaking given by the learned Advocate General under instructions from the aforesaid officers that judgment in question shall be positively implemented within two weeks. While passing aforesaid order, coordinate Bench again reiterated that cases of the original petitioners for promotion were to be considered on the basis of criteria prevalent as on the date when the posts fell vacant subject to the relaxation being granted in the terms of the Rules with respect of the educational qualification. Coordinate Bench of this Court observed in the order that “abundantly, we clarify that in view of paras 8 and 9 of the judgment rendered in Nand Lal (Supra) would mean that relaxation has to be with regard to the educational qualification.” 7. Since undertaking given in the aforesaid contempt petition was not honoured by the respondents, petitioners herein filed application for revival of the contempt proceedings, which otherwise stood decided on 24.12.2018. Perusal of order dated 24.12.2018, reveals that learned Advocate General on the basis of instructions received from the Secretary (SA) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh vide letter dated 21.9.2018 informed this court that matter was placed before the Council of Ministers in their meeting held on 11.12.2018, wherein cabinet has approved the relaxation in the educational qualifications prescribed in the Recruitment and Promotion Rules of the Senior Assistants for promotion of the petitioners. Learned Advocate General further apprised this Court that benefit of relaxation shall be extended to the petitioners by convening a Review DPC and by re-framing the seniority of the incumbents. On the basis of aforesaid instructions placed on record by the learned Advocate General, application for revival having been filed by the petitioners was disposed of. 8. Though pursuant to aforesaid undertaking, review DPC vide order dated 15.2.2019 (Annexure E-7) promoted the petitioners to the post of Senior Assistants, but on notional basis in the pay-scales from the date shown against their names till the date of their actual joining/working on the post. 8. Though pursuant to aforesaid undertaking, review DPC vide order dated 15.2.2019 (Annexure E-7) promoted the petitioners to the post of Senior Assistants, but on notional basis in the pay-scales from the date shown against their names till the date of their actual joining/working on the post. Since petitioners were not given actual benefits on account of their promotions to the post of Senior Assistants from the due date, they have approached this court in the instant proceedings by way of execution petition, seeking therein direction to the respondents to implement/execute the directions contained in judgment dated 22.6.2008 passed by coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP (T) No. 8902 of 2008, which has attained finality. 9. Pursuant to directions issued vide order dated 7.1.2020 in the instant proceedings, respondents-State has filed compliance affidavit stating therein that judgment sought to be executed in the instant proceedings stands duly complied with and nothing remains to be adjudicated in the instant proceedings. It has been averred in the compliance affidavit that after approval of the cabinet qua relaxation in the educational qualification, matter was placed before DPC for promotion of the petitioners from the dates their juniors were promoted. The DPC in view of the approval of the Cabinet qua the relaxation in educational qualification recommended the names of the petitioners for promotion to the post of Senior Assistants from the date their junior eligible incumbents were promoted in the year 2004. Respondents claimed that petitioners were promoted as Senior Assistants w.e.f. 22.1.2004 vide office order dated 15.2.2019 by creating the requisite number of supernumerary posts of Senior Assistants and thereafter, their pay was fixed from the retrospective dates vide office memorandum dated 16.2.2019 (Annexure R/II). Respondents hereinafter claimed that after assigning the seniority, the petitioners were promoted as Superintendent Grade-II from the dates their juniors were promoted i.e. w.e.f. 4.4.2015 vide office order dated 21.2.2019, by creating requisite number of supernumerary posts and their pay was fixed and seniority was assigned vide office memorandum dated 23.3.2019. In nutshell, respondents have claimed that petitioners have been extended all the consequential benefits as admissible i.e. seniority, promotion and pay etc. As regards claim of the petitioners regarding payment of arrears is concerned, promotion from the retrospective dates was granted to the petitioners by creating supernumerary posts and since petitioners never worked against the promotional post, they have been not given arrears. 10. As regards claim of the petitioners regarding payment of arrears is concerned, promotion from the retrospective dates was granted to the petitioners by creating supernumerary posts and since petitioners never worked against the promotional post, they have been not given arrears. 10. Vide order dated 11.3.2020, time was granted to the petitioners to file counter affidavit to the compliance affidavit and opportunity was granted to the respondents to implement the judgment sought to be executed in its letter and spirit. Again, vide communication dated 11.7.2022 addressed to the learned Advocate General from the office of the Principal Secretary (SA), to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, respondents have reiterated that the petitioners had already been released all consequential benefits qua promotion with retrospective dates in relaxation of the Recruitment & Promotion Rules i.e. benefit of seniority, pay fixation from back date and counting of service and the claim of the petitioners regarding payment of arrears is not tenable because they have been promoted against the supernumerary post created for accommodating them in compliance to judgment sought to be executed and as such, no extra financial commitment is involved in creating of such posts in the shape of increased pay and allowances, pensionary benefits etc. Rather, as per FR-17 an official shall draw pay and allowances attached to his tenure post with effect from the date when the benefit of pay fixation was given on national basis, till the day he/she actually assumed his/her duty. 11. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused material available on record, this Court finds that despite repeated assurances and undertaking given to this court, respondents have failed to comply with judgment sought to be executed in its letter and spirit, whereby it was categorically reiterated that vacancies arose prior to the amendment of the rules shall be fulfilled only in accordance with the un-amended rules. Since the respondents ignoring the mandate given by the Hon’ble Apex Court in A. Manoharan’s case (supra), wherein it was held that only those vacancies which existed prior to the amendment of the Rules should be filled up in accordance with the Rules prevalent at the relevant time and only those vacancies which arose after the amendment alone can be filled up in terms of the amended Rules, Coordinate Bench of this Court while passing judgment sought to be executed specifically directed the State to review any promotion granted to any ineligible or unqualified person and thereafter, fill up vacancies which arose prior to the amendment of the rules in accordance with the un-amended rules. Since despite there being aforesaid clear direction issued by the coordinate Bench of this Court, representation filed by the petitioners was rejected, learned Single Judge again vide judgment dated 21.6.2012, passed in CWP No. 6116 of 2011 set aside the order dated 10.12.2010, passed by the respondents on the representations of the petitioners and again directed to consider the cases of the petitioners for promotion to the post of Senior Assistance in accordance with the law from the date their juniors were considered and promoted. While passing aforesaid judgment, learned Single Judge categorically ordered that all consequential benefits, if any, other than seniority be also accorded to the petitioners, however fact remains that aforesaid judgment though was taken in appeal by way of LPA No. 468 of 2012, but same was not interfered with save and except one observation that “observation made in Paras 8 to 10 shall not come in the way of the appellant in considering the cases of the petitioners.” Subsequently, in COPC No. 809 of 2015, coordinate Bench of this Court while passing order dated 9.11.2016, clarified that respondents were required to consider the case of the petitioners in terms of the judgment dated 27.5.2010 rendered by Division Bench in CWP (T) No. 8902 of 2008, which was though laid challenge, but not interfered with. 12. Leaving everything aside, the then Chief Secretary and the then Secretary (GAD) Government of Himachal Pradesh, to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, came present in the Court on 21.3.2018 in COPC No. 21 of 2017 and on the basis of their instructions, learned Advocate General undertook before this court to implement the judgment in question in its letter and spirit within two weeks. Division Bench while passing aforesaid order in contempt petition clarified that in view of the paras-8 and 9 of the judgment rendered in Nand Lal case (supra), relaxation has to be with regard to the educational qualification. 13. Though respondents specifically undertook before the Division Bench at the time of the passing of the order dated 21.3.2018 in COPC No. 21 of 2017 to implement the judgment within two weeks, but failed to honour their commitment and as such, application for revival of the contempt proceedings came to be filed, wherein learned Advocate General apprised this Court that Cabinet has approved relaxation in the educational qualification prescribed under the Recruitment & Promotion Rules of the Senior Assistant for the promotion of the petitioners, as a consequence of which, petitioners came to be entitled for promotion in relaxation of educational qualification prescribed under the Recruitment & Promotion Rules. Review DPC though ordered for their promotions to the post of Senior Assistants and thereafter to Superintendent Grade-II, but on notional basis. Since though repeatedly, it came to be clarified from this Court that vacancies existing prior to the amendment of Recruitment and Promotion Rules should be filled upon only on the basis of un-amended rules and according to such Rules, petitioners herein were entitled to be promoted, but yet respondents promoted the persons junior to them on the basis of amended rules and as such, learned Single Judge while setting aside order dated 10.12.2010 in CWP No. 6116 of 2011, categorically observed that all the consequential benefits, if any, other than the seniority be also accorded to the petitioners, meaning thereby, petitioners were held entitled to all the consequential benefits consequent upon their promotion to the posts of Senior Assistant and thereafter Superintendent Grade-II. 14. In the case at hand, though petitioners have been promoted to the post of Senior Assistants and thereafter, to the post of Superintendent Grade-II, from the date their juniors were promoted against the post in question, but they have been denied actual financial benefits on the ground that they have been promoted against the supernumerary post created for the purpose of promoting them and they have not worked against such posts and as such, they are not entitled to financial benefits. However, this court finds force in the submission of Mr. However, this court finds force in the submission of Mr. Karan Singh Parmar, learned counsel representing the petitioners that since this Court having taken note of illegality committed by the respondents in promoting the persons junior to the petitioners to the post of Senior Assistants existing prior to the amendment of Recruitment and Promotion Rules, specifically clarified in Para 10 of the judgment dated 21.6.2012 passed in CWP No. 6116 of 2011 that the petitioners shall be held entitled to all the consequential benefits, respondents had no option but to grant all the consequential benefits including the arrears while promoting them to the posts of Senior Assistants and thereafter Superintendent Grade-II. Though in the case at hand, respondents have tried to carve out a case that since with a view to comply with judgment sought to be executed, Government after relaxing the educational qualification in Recruitment & Promotion Rules, created supernumerary post and thereafter petitioners were promoted against the supernumerary post of Senior Assistant and Superintendent, they cannot be held entitled for consequential benefits especially arrears but such plea may not be available to the respondents for the reason that this Court having taken note of the fact that respondents wrongly promoted the persons junior against the post of Senior Assistant on the basis of amended Recruitment and Promotion Rules, reserved liberty to the respondents to review any promotion granted to the ineligible and unqualified person. Since posts existing prior to the amendment of Recruitment and Promotion Rules are/were to be filled as per the un-amended rules as has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of A. Manoharan (supra), Mr. R.K. Sharma, the then learned Senior Additional Advocate General, himself submitted before the court at the time of passing of order dated 27.5.2010, State may be given liberty to review any promotion granted to any ineligible or unqualified person in terms of the aforesaid judgment, which was though laid challenge repeatedly, but same was not interfered with. 15. R.K. Sharma, the then learned Senior Additional Advocate General, himself submitted before the court at the time of passing of order dated 27.5.2010, State may be given liberty to review any promotion granted to any ineligible or unqualified person in terms of the aforesaid judgment, which was though laid challenge repeatedly, but same was not interfered with. 15. Having scanned the entire material available on record as well as taken note of the factum with regard to repeated opportunities granted to the respondents to comply with/execute the judgment, this Court has reason to presume and believe that respondents are purposely and willfully not implementing the judgment with a view to defeat the genuine claim of the petitioners, which has accrued to them pursuant to directions issued by the Division Bench of this Court in judgment dated 27.5.2010, however, before passing any harsh order, we direct the respondents to comply with/release all financial benefits to the petitioners pursuant to their promotion to the post of Senior Assistants from the due date within four weeks, from the date of receipt of this order, failing which petitioners would be at liberty to file application, furnishing therein details of property of the department concerned as well as names of the erring officials/officers, enabling this court to pass order of attachment of property and salary of the officials towards execution and implementation of the judgment. All pending application shall also stand disposed of accordingly. 16. List for compliance in the 1st week of January, 2023.