CWP(T) No. 4522/2008 20.04.2010 Present: Mr. K. D. Shreedhar, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. R. M. Bisht, Dy. A. G. for the respondents. Mr. Shreedhar has invited my attention to the judgment dated 29.12.2009 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CWP(T) No. 2492 of 2008 titled as Om Dutt vs. State of H.P. & Ors.. According to him, the matter in issue is squarely covered by the decision. It is the contention of Mr. Ram Murti Bisht that the petitioner would be doubly benefited if the relief prayed for in the present petition is granted to him. The petitioner has been paid salary by the Management till the actual taking over of the possession of the forest by the Govt. from the Management. The employees would be getting benefits both from the Government under the Rules as also the sums already received from the Management. It is also contended that no accounts of the amounts disbursed by the Management have been furnished to the State Government. In any event, in view of Sub Section (2) of Section 8, the Himachal Pradesh Kuttlehar Forest (Acquisition of Management) Act, 1992 (for short the Act), the matter had to be adjudicated only by the Divisional Commissioner. I am in total agreement with the contention made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The facts in issue are identical to that of the petitioner in the above said writ petition. This cannot be disputed. The petitioner in the instant case shall also be entitled to receive benefits as a Forest Ranger and not Forest Guard. The question of applicability of Section 8 of the Act has also been considered by the Court in paras No. 13, 14, 15, 16 & 17 of the judgment. The question of adjudication of dispute by the Divisional Commissioner has also been squarely dealt with in para-18 of the judgment. Hence, the petitioner is held entitled to the same and similar relief which has been accorded to the similarly situated persons. The operation portion of the judgment rendered by this Court in Om Dutt (surpa) is reproduced as under:- “In view of the above, the petition is allowed. The Annexure A-1 dated 19.12.1998 vide which respondent No.4 had given placement of Forest Guard to petitioner w.e.f. 7.2.1996 is quashed. It is held that petitioner was Forest Ranger of H.P. Government on appointed day i.e. 11.3.1995 under the Act and continued as such till 30.11.1998 when he was retired. The petitioner was entitled to salary as was payable to Forest Ranger in the H.P. Government on 11.3.1995 and thereafter. The petitioner is also entitled to counting of his entire service rendered by him under the erstwhile Kutlehar Forest management till his retirement on 30.11.1998 for purposes of pay fixation, seniority and retiral benefits in accordance with Section 8 of the Himachal Pradesh Kutlehar Forest (Acquisition of Management) Act, 1992. The respondents are directed to calculate the arrears payable to petitioner in accordance with the judgment and pay the same to the petitioner within a period of six months from today after adjusting payments which have already been made to the petitioner on account of his retirement on 30.11.1998, failing which the petitioner shall also be entitled to interest at the rate of 9% on such arrears till payment. The petition is disposed of on above terms.” The petitioner shall be entitled to the same benefits. The respondents are directed to do the needful at the earliest. With the aforesaid observations, the petition stands disposed of. ( Sanjay Karol ), Judge. April 20, 2010 (rana)