IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No. 9362 of 2011. Decided on: 1.12.2011. ___________________________________________________________ Sh. Sukh Dev … Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and another. … Respondents. ___________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner : Mr. Dushyant Dadwal, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Anil Jaswal, Dy.A.G. ___________________________________________________________ Justice V.K. Sharma, Judge (Oral). Though the respondents are yet to enter upon reply, yet the learned counsel for the petitioner submits at the very outset that the case of the petitioner is covered under judgment dated 27.5.2011 rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in CWP No. 3430 of 2011, Laxman Ram & ors. versus State of Himachal Pradesh and anr. 2. In view of the above, if on facts the case of the petitioner is covered under the aforesaid judgment in CWP No. 3430 of 2011 and he is a similarly situate person, he shall also be treated similarly without any discrimination and the benefit of the said judgment shall be extended to him within four months from the date of production of copy of this judgment along with copy of writ petition by the petitioner before the 2nd respondent, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, if so desired. 3. The petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also pending application(s), if any. Copy dasti. (V.K. Sharma) Judge. December 1, 2011. (cr) 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. 2