IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA COPC No. 154 of 2011. Decided on: June 2, 2011. Vinod Kumar Nag …Petitioner Versus Shrikant Baldi …Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner: Ms. Ritta Goswami, Advocate. For the respondent: Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Assistant Advocate General. Surjit Singh, Judge (Oral) Heard and gone through the record. 2. Petitioner worked as Volunteer Teacher for quite some time. Thereafter his services were regularized. After regularization of service, he served for 9 years and 6 months and attained the age of superannuation. Since his service fell short of minimum 10 years qualifying service, which makes a retiree eligible for pension, gratuity and pension were not sanctioned in his favour. He approached this Court, by filing a writ petition, which was disposed of, vide order dated 30.6.2010, copy Annexure R-1, with a direction to the respondents that they may consider the case of the petitioner for relaxation of condition of minimum qualifying service of 10 years, for grant of pension/gratuity, in his favour. 3. Now, the government has decided not to relax the condition of 10 years qualifying service and the reason given Whet her report ers of t he l ocal papers may be al l owed t o see t he j udgment ? - 2 - by the respondents, in their order, Annexure P-7, is that there are several other similarly situated persons and in case relaxation is granted in favour of the petitioner, others will also come forward to seek similar relaxation. 4. Learned counsel, representing the petitioner, says that the reason given by the respondents, for not relaxing the condition, is not a good reason, in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Sri Ashoik alias Somanna Gowda and anr. Vs. State of Karnataka by its Chief Secy. & others, 1992(3) SLR 149. 5. In the aforesaid case, Hon’ble Supreme Court held that where a person approaches the Court for grant of relief and there are some other persons, who are better situated than the person approaching the Court, those other persons cannot get the benefit of the judgment that may be rendered in favour of the person approaching the Court, because of their having not approached the Court. 6. In the present case, of course, the petitioner approached this Court, but no relief was granted to him by the Court. A direction was given to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for relaxation of condition of minimum qualifying service of 10 years. Government has taken the decision not to relax the condition, because there will be flood of representations, for relaxation of condition, by the other similarly situated persons. Hence, notice issued to the respondent is discharged. Petition stands disposed of. June 2, 2011 (ss) (Surjit Singh), J.