IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 452 of 2001 Decided on: 18.3.2011 Gopal Thapa ..…Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and another …… Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner : Mr. S.S Sood, Adv.vice counsel. For respondents : Mr. Anil Jaswal, Dy. Advocate General, for the respondents. V.K. Sharma, Judge (Oral) On the last date of hearing (16-3-2011), the following order was passed in this matter: “In terms of order dated 27-8-2001 the present petition was ordered to be place with Civil Writ Petition No. 237 of 2001 and companion matters. It is revealed that CWP No. 237 of 2001 has since been disposed of on 8.4.2007. It being so, the records of CWP No. 237 of 2001 be placed along with this matter. List on 18.3.2011.” 2. In compliance of above order dated 16.3.2011, the records of CWP No. 237 of 2001 and companion matters 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. 2 have been placed along with this matter. A perusal of same would go to show that CWP No. 237 of 2001 and companion matters were finally disposed of vide order dated 5-4-2007, text whereof is as under: “We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The petitioners were engaged by respondent No. 3 as Chowkidars on daily wages. The services of the petitioners were regularized by the Corporation. When they completed ten years service, they were also issued appointment letters. However, respondent No.3 issued a letter dated 14.5.2001 to the petitioners directing them to submit the eligibility certificate, failing which, their services will be terminated. The petitioners approached the Tribunal against the said order and the Tribunal vide its order dated 15.3.2001 stayed the operation of the said order. The petitioners have not filed any appeal against the said order passed by the Tribunal since it was in their favour. The said order as per record was neither confirmed or vacated by the Tribunal and the petitioners have approached this Court praying that respondents No. 1 & 2 be directed to issue eligibility certificate to the petitioners. 3 The petitioners should have approached the Tribunal for appropriate directions in regard to issuance of eligibility certificate, if any, and the directions could have been issued by the Tribunal and in case an adverse order was passed by the Tribunal, the petitioners could have filed the writ petitions in this Court which have not been done by them. The petitioners have directly claimed this relied which could have been granted by the Tribunal and since no order passed by the Tribunal is being challenged in these petitions, all the writ petitions are not maintainable, hence, dismissed. The petitioners are at liberty to approach the Tribunal for appropriate orders.” 3. The petition has been filed on the following prayer:- “Directing the respondent No.2 to issue Bonafide Himachali Certificate in favour of the petitioner as per rules & procedure.” 4. There is no reply as yet. However, with the consent of the parties, the petition is taken up for final disposal. 4 5. The learned vice counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits at the very out-set that the case of the petitioner is covered under judgments of this court in Man Singh Vs. State of H.P & Others, CWP (T) No. 1594 of 2008, and Phool Maya Versus State of H.P. & others, decided on 27th July, 2009 and 17.03.2010, respectively. 6. In view of above, if on facts, the case of the petitioner is covered under the judgments referred to hereinabove and he is similarly situate as he shall also be treated similarly without any discrimination and the benefit of those judgments shall be extended to him subject to outcome of the Letter Patent Appeals pending before this Court, within 3 months from the date of production of copy of this judgment by the petitioner. 5. The petition, as also pending CMP(s), if any, stand disposed of in the above terms. (V.K. Sharma) Judge. 18th March, 2011 (priti)