IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T) No.10402 of 2008 alongwith CWP(T) Nos. 10403, 10404, 10405, 10406, 10414, 10418, 10419 and 16648 of 2008. Decided on: 30.06.2010. __________________________________________________________ 1. CWP(T) No.10402 of 2008. Pushp Lata. … Petitioner. Versus H.P.S.E.B. and others. … Respondents. 2. CWP(T) No.10403 of 2008. Heera Singh Negi. … Petitioner. Versus H.P.S.E.B. and others. … Respondents. 3. CWP(T) No.10404 of 2008. Raj Kumar Sharma. … Petitioner. Versus H.P.S.E.B. and others. … Respondents. 4. CWP(T) No.10405 of 2008. Manoj Kumar Gupta. … Petitioner. Versus H.P.S.E.B. and others. … Respondents. 5. CWP(T) No.10406 of 2008. Kishor Rana. … Petitioner. Versus H.P.S.E.B. and others. … Respondents. - 2 - 6. CWP(T) No.10414 of 2008. Shakti Chand. … Petitioner. Versus H.P.S.E.B. and others. … Respondents. 7. CWP(T) No.10418 of 2008. Vidya Nand Sharma. … Petitioner. Versus H.P.S.E.B. and others. … Respondents. 8. CWP(T) No.10419 of 2008. Shashi Bala. … Petitioner. Versus H.P.S.E.B. and others. … Respondents. 9. CWP(T) No.16648 of 2008. Banku Ram. … Petitioner. Versus H.P.S.E.B. and others. … Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner(s) : Mr. P.P. Chauhan, Advocate (in all the petitions.) For the Respondents/Board : Ms. Anjula Khajuria, Advocate (in all the petitions). Rajiv Sharma, J. (Oral): It is jointly represented by the learned counsel for the parties that the present lis is squarely covered by the judgment rendered 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. - 3 - by this Court in CWP No.415 of 2000, titled Baldev Singh and others versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others and other connected matters decided on 1.9.2008 and also CWP(T) No.781 of 2008, titled as Rakesh Chand and others versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others, decided on 15.6.2010. It is also not disputed that though the facts of these petitions are same and similar, however, decision rendered in Baldev Singh (supra) is under challenge before the appellate Court. However, it is not disputed that operation of the said decision has not been stayed the appellate Court. 2. The facts being identical, directions issued in Baldev Singh and Rakesh Chand cases (supra) shall mutatis mutandis apply to the instant case also. 3. The respondents/authorities shall take consequential action within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this judgment. The petitions stand disposed of. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma), Judge. June 30, 2010. (sck).