IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA LPA No. 171 of 2011 Judgment Reserved on 2nd August, 2011 Date of Decision 16th September, 2011 ________________________________________________________ Gurdip Singh ….Appellant Versus State of H.P. & other ….Respondents. ________________________________________________________ Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.B. Misra, J. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 ________________________________________________________ For the Appellant: Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocate. For Respondent No.1 to 3: Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. Advocate General with Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Addl. Advocate General. For Respondent No. 4: Mr. Sandeep Sharma, Assistant Solicitor General of India. ____________________________________________________________ (Dev Darshan Sud), J. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant herein against the judgment of the Hon’ble Single Judge in CWP No. 7036 of 2008. 2. The petition was taken up by the Hon’ble Judge for hearing on 18th August, 2010 when it was noticed that the 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 petitioner was not represented and the case was accordingly listed for 15th September, 2010. On that day, again nobody appeared for the petitioner and the Hon’ble Single Judge took up the petition and decided on the pleadings/record. He took into consideration the communications/orders which have been issued by the State from time to time and placed on the record with the reply and held that the grievance of the petitioner had been redressed and nothing survived for adjudication. The petition was dismissed as being infructuous. 3. The appellant now challenges this decision on a number of grounds. 4. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant and gone through the record of the case. 5. We find that same grounds which have been urged in the petition before the Hon’ble Judge have been reiterated in this appeal. On the submission made that the judgment is not in accordance with law and facts on record as it ignores the actual benefits due and payable to the petitioner, we cannot accept this submission as we find that the Hon’ble Single Judge has decided the petition in considering the material on record and despite repeated opportunities having been given to the petitioner, he chose to absent himself from this Court nor was he represented by any counsel. In these circumstances, we cannot accept the submission that the factual matrix has not been considered in its true prospective. This appeal is now sought to be converted into original proceedings for no other reason than that the petitioner was absent. Therefore, we do not intend to interfere in the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Single Judge, but it will be open 3 to the petitioner to file a review petition if permissible under law before the Hon’ble Single Judge to bring to His Lordships’ notice any error apparent on the face of the record. Appeal stands disposed of in terms of the order passed. No order as to costs. (R.B. Misra) Judge September16 , 2011 (Dev Darshan Sud), ms Judge