IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.744 of 2005 Decided on : November 4, 2008 State of H.P. …Petitioner. Versus Ravinder Kumar …Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. R.B. Misra, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner : Mr. P.K. Sharma, Additional Advocate General. For the Respondent : In person. Per Surjit Singh, Judge( Oral ) State of Himachal Pradesh has filed the present writ petition, under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, seeking judicial review of order dated 18th November, 2004, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, whereby while allowing the Original Application of respondent Ravinder Kumar, an IPS Officer, a direction has been issued to the writ petitioner to pay deputation allowance to the respondent for the period from 17th August, 1998 to 22nd April, 2000, when he remained on deputation with H.P. State Electricity Board and Prisons Department of the State against the posts, which are not included in the cadre of IPS. 2. Admittedly, the respondent is an IPS Officer. It is also not in dispute that when the services of the respondent Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? were placed with the State Electricity Board, for being posted as DIG (Vigilance), and with the Prisons Department of the State, for being posted as DIG (Prisons), posts of DIG (Vigilance) and DIG (Prisons) were not cadre posts. However, the State Government issued notifications in June, 2000 and September, 2000, declaring the aforesaid two posts as cadre posts. Notifications were given retrospective effect. 3. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Anil Kumar Chowdhury versus State of Assam & others, 1975(4) SCC 7, relied upon by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, has held that the State Governments do not have power to declare a non-cadre post as a cadre post, with retrospective effect, in view of the amendment made in 1967 to the Pay Rules of All India Services. 4. In view of the abovestated position, we see no merit in the present writ petition, muchless a justifiable ground for interfering with the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, by way of judicial review. Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed. Writ petition stands disposed of. ( R.B. Misra ), J. November 4, 2008(sd) ( Surjit Singh ), J.