IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWPs No. 8198 of 2010. Decided on: December 28, 2010. Ram Swaroop …..Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. and others …..Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. For the petitioner: Mr.Vinay Kuthiala, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Ankush Dass Sood, Addl.A.G., with Mr.J.K. Verma, Dy.A.G. for respondents No.1 and 2. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral) The writ petition is filed with the following prayers: “ b) That a Writ of Mandamus may kindly be issued to the respondents directing them to treat the petitioner on deputation in the Federation till he completes 10 years of service and to grant reiral/pensionary benefits to the petitioner after taking into account the services rendered by him in the Animal Husbandry Department to the Government of H.P. c) That the respondents be directed not to discriminate against the petitioner and to treat him in the same manner as the other transferees/deputations from the Animal Husbandry Department of respondent No.3 and to comply with the judgment (Annexure P- 4).” 2. According to the petitioner, his case is covered by Annexure P-4, judgment of this court rendered in CWP No.5081 of 2010, titled Amar Singh Maratha versus State of H.P. and Anr., the text of which judgment is reproduced below: “2. An identical issue has been considered by this Court in respect of the same department, leading to Annexure P-4, judgment in CWP No. 1097 of 2010. The text of the judgment reads as follows: “According to the petitioner, the issue in principle, is covered by the decision of this Court in CWP No. 1781 of 2002 dated 4.7.2008. In case the petitioner is similarly situated as the petitioner therein, petitioner will also be entitled to a similar treatment. The relief cannot be denied only on the ground that the decision in the said case is confined only to the petitioner therein. It is a principle that has been settled by this court. It is also to be seen that the principle has been reiterated by this Court in the judgment CWP No. 1635/2002 dated 24.2.2009. Therefore, we set aside annexure P-4 with direction to the third respondent to consider Annexure P-3 afresh and take appropriate action in the light of the observations contained in this judgment, within a period of two months from the date of 2 production of the copy of this judgment along with the copy of the writ petition. Petition stands disposed of.” 3. Since the petitioner claims to be similarly situated, we set aside Annexure P-8 with direction to the first respondent to consider the matter afresh in the light of the judgment, referred to above and extend similar treatment to the petitioner in case the petitioner is similarly situated, within a period of four months from the date of production of the copy of this judgment alongwith a copy of the Writ Petition, by the petitioner.” 3. Therefore, the present writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the first respondent to consider the case of the petitioner in the light of the judgment referred to and extend similar treatment to the petitioner in case the petitioner is similarly situated, within a period of four months from the date of production of a copy of this judgment alongwith a copy of the writ petition by the petitioner. 4. With these directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any. Copy Dasti. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice. December 28, 2010. ( Justice V.K. Ahuja), (tilak/pankaj) Judge.