IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA C.W.P. No. 272 of 2005 Date of decision: 22.12.2008 State of H.P. and another ..Petitioners Versus Madhvinder Sharma ..Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.B.Misra, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioners: Mr.P.K.Sharma, Additional Advocate General with Mr. P.M. Negi, Deputy Advocate General. For the Respondent: Mr. Rajinder Thakur, vice counsel Per Surjit Singh, Judge(Oral) State has sought judicial review of the order dated 8th December, 2004, passed by the H.P. State Administrative Tribunal (now defunct) by filing the present writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. By the impugned order, tribunal has allowed the writ petition, filed by respondent Madhvinder Sharma and directed the petitioners to allow all the annual increments to the respondent from the date of his joining the service. 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? 2 2. Relevant facts are that respondent Madhvinder Sharma joined service as Excise and Taxation Sub Inspector in December, 1963. In May, 1969 the post was re-designated as Inspector. The respondent was supposed to have passed a departmental examination within 3 years from the date of his recruitment. However, he could not pass that examination and on account of that, his increments were not released. The Departmental Examination Rules provide for exemption from passing the examination to a person, who attains the age of 50 years. When the respondent attained that age, he was exempted and increments, which accrued after his attaining the age of 50 years, were released. The respondent claimed increments for the earlier period also, that is to say from 1963 onwards and, therefore, he filed the original application. The learned tribunal has allowed the application relying upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Punjab and another Vs. Sham Lal Murari and another 1976 (1) SLR 890. The Supreme Court has held in the aforesaid case that failure to pass the departmental test by the government servant concerned, after having put in more than two decades of service cannot stand in the way of his enjoying the benefits of increments etc., particularly because he had been accorded exemption. 3. Since the order of tribunal is based on aforesaid judgment of Supreme Court and no precedent to the contrary has been cited, we see no reason to interfere with the order of 3 the tribunal, particularly in exercise of power of judicial review under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. Hence the writ petition is dismissed. ( R. B. Misra ), J. December 22, 2008(K) ( Surjit Singh ), J.