CWP(T) No. 11617 of 2008 07.04.2011 Present: Mr. G. R. Palsra, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Ram Murti Bisht, Deputy Advocate General with Mr. Vinod Thakur, Dy. A.G. for respondents/State. It is the contention of the petitioner that her husband, who was working as a Craft Teacher, on ad hoc basis, has not been accorded benefit of the decision rendered by the Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 148 of 1990, titled as Dharam Singh and others versus State of H.P. and others (Annexure-PC) which also pertains to similarly situated persons. Petitioner’s husband expired on 6.10.1992 after completing service of approximately seven years. There is nothing on record to show as to whether the decision in Dharam Singh (supra) has attained finality or not. 2. Consequently, as prayed for by the petitioner, there is a direction to respondent No. 1 to consider the case of the petitioner’s husband in light of the judgment in Dharam Singh (supra). In the matter of grant of pensionary benefits petitioner’s husband could not have been discriminated. The decision be taken within a period of four months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. Petition stands disposed of accordingly. (Sanjay Karol), Judge. April 7, 2011 (PK)