IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP (T) No. 8 of 2011. Decided on: 29.7.2011. __________________________________________________________ Om Parkash … Petitioner. Versus H.P. State Electricity Board & ors. … Respondents. __________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice. Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, Judge. For the petitioner : Mr. Ajay K. Dhiman, Advocate. For the respondents : Ms. Anjula Khajuria, Advocate. ___________________________________________________________ Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral). The petition has been filed with the following prayers:- “(a). That the respondent may kindly be directed to give promotion as per the seniority to the applicant. (b). That the respondent may kindly be directed to pay full wages to the applicant for the period of his disengagement alongwith all consequential benefits. 2. In reply, at para 1 of the preliminary submissions, it is stated as follows:- “1. In this context, replying respondents submit with utmost respect that the applicant herein has totally and with his best knowledge gave in writing in the form of an undertaking for not claiming any arrears for his past service if he was reengaged against any of the available vacant post. Accordingly, he was given offer of Store Helper on daily wages and later on regularized as Store Helper (Work Charged) vide Dy. Chief Engineer, Project Construction Circle, HPSEB, Dharamshala, Memorandum No. HPSEB-SEB-WC-10Pt. File/02-2106-10, dated 31.7.2002 (copy enclosed as per Annexure R-I). The detailed order of the Secretary, HPSEB, Shimla bearing No. HPSEB (Sectt.)/321-11/Court Case/2001-42272-77, dated 12.7.2001 (copy enclosed as per 2 Annexure R-2 gives clear sequel of the court ruling and matter was settled accordingly when the applicant gave an undertaking as referred to in the above order of the replying respondents for not claiming any benefit of the past service. As such, he was given the post of Store Helper (on daily wages) and later on appointed as Store Helper (Work Charged). Since the applicant has agreed in principle and gave an undertaking for not claiming any benefits of past service rendered by him in the course of personal hearing with the Secretary, HPSEB, Shimla, on the directions of Hon’ble Tribunal, as such, consequential benefits are not admissible to the applicant, thus, being so, the O.A. is not maintainable and deserves dismissal.” 3. There is no rejoinder. 4. In case the petitioner still has any dispute with regard to the position as stated in the reply-affidavit, he may approach the 1st respondent, in which case the 1st respondent will look into the matter and shall take appropriate action in accordance with law within a period of four months. 5. The writ petition is disposed of, so also the pending applications, if any. (Justice Kurian Joseph) Chief Justice. (Justice V.K. Sharma) July 29, 2011. Judge. (cr/virender)