1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA. CWP (T) No. 13342 of 2008. Date of Decision: 30th December, 2010. Hardyal Singh …..Petitioner. Versus State of HP and others …..Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the Petitioner: Mr. Neel Kamal Sood, Advocate For the Respondents: Mr. R.M. Bisht, Dy. Advocate General. Sanjay Karol, J. (Oral). Petitioner’s representation stands decided in terms of impugned order dated 2.1.206 (Annexure A-5). His claim for regularization as Fitter stands rejected. 2. Petitioner claims to have worked in different capacities over a period of time. According to him, he worked as fitter Grade-I. Whereas according to the State, he worked as Assistant Fitter, Beldar and Fitter. 3. It cannot be disputed that Division Bench of this Court has decided claim of such like persons in Gauri Dutt vs. State of H.P. Latest HLJ 2008 HP 366. Petitioner’s case is squarely covered by the decision rendered in the said case. 4. Consequently, directions issued in Gauri Dutt (supra) shall mutatis mutandis apply to the instant case also. Consequently, 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 directions are issued to the respondents to take appropriate action, in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Amount due and admissible, if any, be also disbursed to the petitioner within the aforesaid period, failing which, thereafter petitioner shall be entitled to interest @ 9% per annum. 4. With the aforesaid observations, present petition stand disposed of. (Sanjay Karol) Judge December 30, 2010 (KRS)