1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA. C.W.P No. 479 of 2009 Date of Decision: 29.12.2011 Shri. Hari Dass son of Shri Sant Ram, resident of Kohhu Lower, Tehsil Nalagarh, Distt. Solan, H.P Ex. Beldar/T- mate, HPSEB Elec. Div. Nalagarh, Distt. Solan, H.P. Ex. Beldar/T-Mate, HPSEB Electrical Div. Nalagarh, Distt. Solan, H.P. .. Petitioner. Versus 1. The H.P State Electricity Board through its Secretary with Headquarter at Shimla. 2. The Executive Engineer, H.P State Electricity Board, Elect. Division, Nalagarh, Distt. Solan, H.P. 3. The Presiding Officer, Hon’ble H.P Labour Court, Shimla, Distt. Shimla. H.P. ..Respondents. Petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of writ of certiorari, Mandamus any other suitable writ order or directions in the circumstances as mentioned hereinafter. 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. Trilok Jamwal, Advocate, for respondents No. 1 and 2. Sanjay Karol, J (oral) Learned counsel for the petitioner has invited my attention to the decision rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in LPA No. 354 of 2010 titled as H.P.S.E.B versus Amar Singh and another along with other connected matters decided on 29.8.2011. According to him the present petitioner 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 is also similarly situated and as such present petition needs to be disposed of in terms of directions issued in the said judgment, copy of which is taken on record. Learned counsel for the respondent does not dispute this position. The relevant portion of the judgment reads as under:- “In the instant appeals challenge is primarily to the directions issued by the learned Single Judge of this Court holding the petitioners entitled to 50% back wages on the basis of another judgment passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No.1041 of 2008, titled as Sattar Mohammad versus The H.P. State Electricity Board and others, dated 9.1.2009. However, vide judgment dated 29.8.2011 this Court in LPA No. 11 of 2011 has clearly held that the decision in Sattar Mohammad’s case is purely applicable to the peculiar facts of that case. 2. As such the said decision cannot be said to be a binding precedent and applicable to the instant facts. 3. It is not in dispute that petitioners are likely to be re- engaged by the appellants within a fortnight, as such, appeals are partly allowed and direction, to the extent that the petitioners shall be entitled to 50% back wages is set aside. 4. Appeals are disposed of with the aforesaid directions.” 2. As such, directions issued in Amar Singh (Supra) shall mutatis mutandis apply to the present case also. 3 3. The petition stands disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any. December 29,2011 (Sanjay Karol),Judge. (Priti)