CWP(T) No.8495 of 2008 3.3.2011 Present: Mr. Dilip Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. R. M. Bisht, Dy. A.G. with Mr. Vinod Thakur, Dy. A.G. for respondents. CMP (T) No. 124 of 2008 Allowed for the reasons stated out in the application. During the pendency of the petition, the petitioner has expired leaving behind his legal heirs as per the particulars mentioned in the application. They are directed to be substituted. Amended memo of parties has already filed. The Registry is directed to carry out the necessary entries. CWP (T) No.8495 of 2008. It is not in dispute that the matter in issue is clearly covered by the decision rendered by the division bench of this Court in CWP No. 3339 of 2010 titled as State of H. P. and another versus Usha Sood, decided on 30th July, 2010. Consequently, a direction is issued in favour of the petitioner to the effect that direction issued either by the Tribunal or by this Court in the aforesaid case shall mutatis mutandis apply to the present case also. The respondents-State is directed to take consequential decision within a period of four months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Monetary benefits, if any, be also released within the aforesaid period, failing which, thereafter petitioner shall be entitled to interest @ 9% per annum. With these observations, petition stands disposed of. ( Sanjay Karol) Judge March 3, 2011. (jai)