1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA. CWP(T) No. 11657 of 2008. Date of Decision: 20th April, 2011. Sanichru Ram …..Petitioner. Versus HPSEB and others …..Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the Petitioner: Mr. A.K Gupta, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Shashi Shirshoo, Advocate. Sanjay Karol, J. (Oral). According to the learned counsel for the parties, the matter in issue is covered by the decision rendered by the erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal in OA No. 2025 of 1998 titled as Khajan Chand Vs. H.P.S.E.B & Ors. Petitioner is similarly situated to the petitioner in Khajan Chand’s case (supra). The other similarly situated persons already stand accorded benefits of the aforesaid decision. The petitioner is only left out person to whom such benefits have not been accorded. 2. In view of aforesaid, the directions issued in Khajan Chand’s case (supra) shall mutatis mutandis apply to the instant case also. The respondents are directed to take action within a period of 4 months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 Monetary benefits be also disbursed within the aforesaid period, failing which, thereafter petitioner shall also be entitled to interest @ 9% per annum. 3. Petition stands disposed of in the above terms. ( Sanjay Karol), Judge April 20, 2011 (Priti)