CWP(T) No.1/2008 alongwith CWP(T) NO. 1976/2008 & CWP (T) No. 1982/2008 and CMP(T) No.828/2009 in CWP(T) No.1/2008 . 30.10.2009 Present: Mr. Dilip Sharma and Mrs. Ranjana Parmar, Advocates for the petitioners. Ms. Anjula Khajuria, Advocate for the respondents. These petitions were filed before the erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal and upon transfer to this Court, have been renumbered as Civil Writ Petitions. During the pendency of the petitions, the petitioners and the respondents have arrived at a settlement which is evident from the annexures annexed only with application being CMP(T) No.828/2009. Certain benefits have been accorded to the petitioners. In similarly situated matter, this Court had passed the following order on 14.9.2009:- “As far as the review petition is concerned, we are of the considered view that all arguments raised by the petitioner have been taken note of while disposing of the same. There is no error apparent on the record of the case. Therefore, the review petition is liable to be dismissed. Mr. Naresh Kumar Sood, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in a similar matter being CWP No. 490 of 1997 titled Chura Mani Vs. Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board, even though the petition was dismissed, the Chairman of the Board was directed to examine the petitioner’s case and to consider what duties should be assigned to him. Looking into the background of the case and keeping in view the nature of duties performed by the petitioner till date, the Chairman Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board is directed to examine the matter and decide what duties are to be assigned to the petitioner in future. We make it clear that we are not indicating the nature of duties to be assigned by the Chairman while deciding the matter. With the aforesaid observations, the review petition is disposed of.” The parties are bound by the settlement arrived at between themselves and as such keeping in view the long pendency of the present petitions as also the fact that the petitioners have been rendering services to the satisfaction of the respondent board, no further direction is required to be issued, save and except that the aforesaid order dated 14.9.2009, passed in Review Petition No.46 of 2009 shall also be made applicable and the Chairman of the respondent board shall examine the matter and decide the duties which are to be assigned to the petitioners herein. The decision shall be positively taken within a period of 8 weeks from today. The parties have placed on record the order dated 14.9.2009 passed in Review Petition No.46 of 2009. With these observations, the present petitions and applications are disposed of. ( Sanjay Karol ), Judge. October 30, 2009 (rana)