IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. LPA No. 189 of 2010. Decided on: 7th April, 2011. State of H.P. & others. …Appellants. Versus Naresh Chand. … Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. For the Appellants : Mr. R.K. Bawa, Advocate General, with Mr. J.K. Verma, Dy. Advocate General. For the Respondent : Mr. Yudhvir Singh, Advocate, vice Mr. K.D. Shreedhar, Advocate. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral) The State has come up in appeal against the judgment dated 21.4.2010 passed in CWP (T) No. 6508 of 2008 titled as Naresh Chand vs. State of H.P. and others. It is seen that an identical issue was considered by this Court in LPA No.82 of 2010 titled as State of H.P. and others vs. Om Dutt Sharma, wherein it has been held as follows: “The State has come up in appeal against the judgment dated 20.11.2009 in CWP(T) No. 2492 of 2008. The simple dispute pertains to the conditions of service of the writ petitioner, who was an employee of the erstwhile Kutlehar Forests Management, after its take over by the State of Himachal Pradesh. As far as the transfer of the management is concerned, the appointed day is 11.3.1995 and as on that date the petitioner was a Forest Ranger under the erstwhile Kutlehar Forests Management, and in terms of the take over, the petitioner is continued as such. It is the contention of -2- the learned Deputy Advocate General that there is no proper requirement of the petitioner under the erstwhile Kutlehar Forests Management rules and his fixation of pay also was not proper. But, as rightly found by the learned Single Judge at Paras 17 to 21, there was no dispute as far as service conditions of the petitioner are concerned and hence the same was not referred either to the Divisional Commissioner or to the Committee. Having not pursued the dispute as is now sought to be raised, in terms of the procedure prescribed under the conditions of take over, the State cannot thereafter indirectly attack the placement and fixation of the writ petitioner. In that view of the matter, we do not find any legal infirmity or irregularity in the view taken by the learned Single Judge.” 2. For the above reasons, this appeal is dismissed, so also the pending applications, if any. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice 7th April, 2011. (Justice V.K. Ahuja), (tr/K) Judge.