CWP(T) No. 1410 of 2008 23.02.2011 Present: Mr. Dilip Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Ram Murti Bisht, Deputy Advocate General with Mr. Vinod Thakur, Dy. A.G. for the respondents/State. In almost similar circumstances, while dealing with the case of categories other than Beldar, which is in issue in the present petition, the Division Bench of this Court in CWP(T) No. 1531 of 2008, titled as The Municipal Employees Union versus State of H.P. and others, copy of which is taken on record, has passed the following directions:- “7. In the nature of order we are propose to take in this case, we do not think it necessary or appropriate to refer to the various contentions taken by the parties since the communications as reflected above show that the Government is seized of the matter. It will be appropriate that the Government takes a final decision in the matter at the earliest. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of as follows. There will be a direction to the first respondent to take final decision in the matter referred to above in the communications as extracted above, within a period of three months from the date of production of the copy of the judgment by the petitioner. In case the petitioner requests for an opportunity for hearing, the same shall be granted and in case any of the interested/affected parties also request for hearing, the same shall also be granted. Till such orders as above are passed by the Government, the interim orders passed by the Tribunal dated 13.7.1998 and 17.5.1999 will continue, subject to the following modification: -2- We make it clear that in case of the employees of the Corporation who are otherwise eligible to be promoted in terms of the impugned order if available in the Corporation, they shall be promoted subject to the outcome of the decision by the Government. It is also made clear that in case there are no such eligible persons available with the Corporation, it will be open to the respondents to take appropriate arrangement by way of secondment, subject to the out come of the decision by the Government. We make it clear that we have not adverted to the contentions taken by the parties and hence all the contentions are left open.” 2. In the instant case the implementation of the order of transfer dated 11.6.2008 and order relieving petitioner was stayed on 25.6.2008. Petitioner also continues to serve at his original place of posting. 3. The present petition is disposed of with the directions issued by the Division Bench of this Court in the Municipal Employees Union (supra). 4. The respondents are directed to take action in accordance with law in terms of the aforesaid directions. Present petition stands disposed of accordingly. (Sanjay Karol), Judge. February 23, 2011 (PK)