IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. C.W.P. (T) No. 14132 of 2008. Decided on 24.02.2011. _____________________________________________________ Dhani Ram Dhiman. …Petitioner. -Versus- State of Himachal Pradesh and Others. …Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. __________________________________________________________ For the petitioner. : Mr. D.P. Gupta, Advocate. For the respondents. : Mr. A.K. Bansal, Additional Advocate General with Mr. R.P. Singh, Assistant Advocate General. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rajiv Sharma, Judge (Oral): Case of the petitioner, in a nut-shell, is that similarly situate person, Shri D.V. Marwah, who had filed an Original Application No. 234 of 1994, has been granted the requisite benefits on the basis of order dated 28th March, 1994, passed by the learned erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal vide Annexure A-8. A bare perusal of the Annexures placed on record by the petitioner reveals that the petitioner is also situated at par with Shri D.V. Marwah. 2. The learned Additional Advocate General has failed to point-out that the petitioner was not similarly situate vis-à-vis Shri D.V. Marwah. 2. Consequently, the petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to grant the monetary benefits to the 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?. No. - 2 - petitioner on the basis of Annexure A-8, within a period of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment by the petitioner. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma) Judge February 24, 2011. (bhupender) - 3 - `