IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No. 6593 of 2010. Decided on: October 21, 2010. Hari Singh …..Petitioner. Versus H.P.S.E.B. & Anr. ….Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, Judge. For the petitioner: Mr. S.S. Sood, Advocate, vice counsel. For the Respondents: Ms. Anjula Khajuria, Advocate. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral) It is submitted that the issue is covered in favour of the petitioner by the judgment rendered by this Court in CWP No. 3568 of 2010. The text of the judgment reads as follows:- “The petitioner in this case is aggrieved since he is 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 respondents-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 petitioner herein is 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 petitioner in this case was either comfortably waiting for the result of that litigation and was not vigilant enough to have his case also fought in terms of his 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 petitioner is 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 petitioner herein also, however, restricting the actual monetary benefits 2 only prospectively. Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of making it clear that the petitioner 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. In case the petitioner herein is also similarly situated, he shall also be extended similar treatment as extended to the petitioner in the judgment, referred to above. 3. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly, so also the pending application (s), if any. Copy Dasti. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice. October 21, 2010. ( Justice V.K. Sharma ), (karan/vs) Judge.