IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP Nos. 2012 of 2010 and connected matters. Decided on: June 2, 2010. 1. CWP No. 2012 of 2010 Er. Balbir Singh Sharma ….. Petitioner. Versus HPSEB & anr. ….. Respondents. 2. CWP No. 2013 of 2010 Tashi Dawa ….. Petitioner. Versus HPSEB & anr. ….. Respondents. 3. CWP No. 2014 of 2010 Ram Dass Kulvi ….. Petitioner. Versus HPSEB & anr. ….. Respondents. 4. CWP No. 2015 of 2010 Parkash Chand Bodh ….. Petitioner. Versus HPSEB & anr. ….. Respondents. 5. CWP No. 2016 of 2010 Nawang Gialechhan Bodh ….. Petitioner. Versus HPSEB & anr. ….. Respondents. 6. CWP No. 2017 of 2010 Lall Chand ….. Petitioner. Versus HPSEB & anr. ….. Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. For the petitioner(s) Mr. Neel Kamal Sood, Advocate. 2 For the Respondents Ms. Anjula Khajuria, Advocate, for HPSEB. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral) The petitioners in these cases are aggrieved since they are not extended the benefit of Annexure P-3, judgment rendered in CWP(T) 2064 of 2008 and connected matters. The learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent-Board submits that the learned Single Judge had restricted the benefit of the judgment only to the petitioners covered by the judgment and hence the petitioners herein are not extended the benefits. Having gone through Annexure P-3 (judgment), we find that learned Single Judge confined the benefit of the judgment to the petitioners in those cases, taking note also of the fact that they had been agitating the matter before various Forums for over two decades. The petitioners in these cases were either comfortably waiting for the result of that litigation and were not vigilant enough to have their cases also fought in terms of their rights. It is well settled proposition that the law does not reach to the help of those who sleep over their rights. However, we find that the learned Single Judge has laid down the principle that the benefit of reservation should be extended at the time of confirmation and the seniority had to be determined accordingly. It is seen that the judgment had been implemented. Since the petitioners are also similarly situated, it is only just, fit and proper that the benefit of the principle laid down by the learned Single Judge which has been accepted by the Board is extended to the petitioners herein also however, restricting the actual monetary benefits only prospectively. Therefore, these writ petitions are disposed of 3 making it clear that the petitioners herein also shall be entitled to that similar treatment, except for the actual monetary benefits which shall be only available prospectively with effect from the date of the implementation of the judgment by the respondent- Board. 2. The writ petitions are disposed of as above, so also the pending application(s), if any. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice. June 2, 2010. ( Justice Rajiv Sharma), (karan/vs) Judge.