IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. COPC No. 421/2010 Decided on:1.4.2011 _____________________________________________ Dr. Madan Lal Sharma. …Petitioner. Versus Mrs. Nisha Singh. …Respondent. ________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the petitioner : Mr. D.P. Gupta, Advocate vice Mr. K.D. Shreedhar, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. Vinay Kuthiala, Advocate. _____________________________________________________ Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge (oral). In sequel to order dated 25.2.2011 reply stands filed. Mr. Vinay Kuthiala, learned counsel for the respondent, on the basis of the instructions imparted to him by his client submits that respondent intend to file a review against the judgment dated 16.12.2009 rendered in CWP-T No. 2535/2008. The operative portion of the judgment reads thus: “Accordingly, in view of the observations made hereinabove, the writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for the post of Ayurvedic Chikitsa Adhikari from the date the persons from the junior batch were considered, with all the consequential benefits. The needful will be done 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No 2 within a period of four weeks from today. It is clarified by way of abundant precaution that since respondent No.1 is at fault of not considering the candidature of the petitioner, the criteria of maximum age shall not apply in the case of the petitioner. 2. Mr. Vinay Kuthiala submits that the petitioner, on the basis of the judgment dated 16.12.2009, is required to be paid huge amount. However, in order to balance the equities between the parties, the methodology was evolved with the consent of the parties whereby the arrears of the petitioner, now for the time being, will be restricted to three years. The payment and release of three years shall abide by the outcome of review or any Letters Patent Appeal to be preferred against the judgment dated 16.12.2009. 3. Accordingly, the appointment letter be issued to the petitioner. Three years’ arrears be also paid to the petitioner, for the time being, within a period of six weeks from today. 4. Consequently, in view of the observations and directions made hereinabove, the petition is disposed of. No costs. (Justice Rajiv Sharma), Judge. 1.4.2011 *awasthi*