IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP (T) No. 8992 of 2008 Decided on: 23.12.2010 Lait Kumar ..…Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others …… Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner : Mr. Surinder Thakur, Advocate. For respondents : Mr. Anil Jaswal, Dy. Advocate General, for the respondents. V.K. Sharma, Judge (Oral) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits at the very outset that the case of the petitioner is covered under judgments rendered by this Court in CWP No. 2735 of 2010, titled as Rakesh Kumar v. State of H.P., decided on 28.7.2010 and CWP No. 415 of 2000, titled as Baldev Singh & Ors. v. State of H.P. & Ors., decided on 1.9.2008. 2. In view of above, if on facts, the case of the petitioner is covered under the judgments, referred to hereinabove and he is a similarly situate person, as the petitioners in the cases referred to hereinabove, he shall also be treated similarly without any discrimination and benefit of the aforesaid judgments shall also be extended to him. However, it is made clear that as far as Baldev Singh’s case is concerned, the action in the light of judgment will be taken only subject to the outcome of LPA pending before this 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. 2 Court. With regard to the contention based on Rakesh Kumar’s case, appropriate action in the light of the said judgment will be taken within a period of three months from the date of production of copy of this judgment alongwith copy of judgments referred to above, by the petitioner before respondent No.3. 3. With these observations, the writ petition stands disposed of, so also pending CMP(s), if any. (V.K. Sharma) Judge. 23rd December, 2010 (vt)