IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No. 11360 of 2011-F. Decided on: December 23, 2011. 1. Sudhir Dutt Gautam, Son of Shri Ram Dutt Gautam, R/O Village, Post Office & Tehsil Jawali, District Kangra (H.P.) 2. Shri Ishwender Singh Thakur Son of Shri Kulender Singh Thakur, R/o Mahindra Cottage, Upper Street, Nahan, Tehsil Nahan, District Sirmaur (H.P.) 3. Shri Naveen Kumar Sharma Son of Shri Uttam Chand Sharma, R/o Village Siharal, Post Office Sunder Nagar-I, Tehsil Sunder Nagar, District Mandi (H.P.) ……….Petitioners. Versus 1. The State of Himachal Pradesh through Secretary (Cooperation) to the Govt. of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla-171002 (H.P.). 2. The Registrar, HP. State Cooperative Societies, Shimla-171009 (H.P.). 3. The Kangra Central Cooperative Bank Ltd., Head Office Dharamsala, District Dharamsala, through its Managing Director. 4. The Managing Director, H.P. State Cooperative Bank Ltd., Head Office, the Mall, Shimla. ……….Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. For the petitioners: Mr. Naresh Kaul, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. R.K. Bawa, AG with Mr. J.K. Verma, Dy. AG for respondents No. 1 & 2. Mr. Ranjan Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No. 3. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral) The writ petition is filed with mainly with the following prayer:- “i) That the rejection of representations by not a competent authority vide Annexures P-5, P-6 & P-7 (General Manager (Admn.) instead of Managing Director, KCCB (Kangra central co- operative bank) may kindly be quashed and set aside and the Respondents may kindly be directed to consider & decide the 2 representation of the Petitioners regarding pay protection, lien etc. and give them appointment to the posts of Manager Gr.II, within a time-bound period.” 2. According to the petitioners, the Board has taken a decision in the case of few persons, as can be seen from Annexure P-8. According to the learned standing counsel appearing for respondent No. 3, the petitioners are not similarly situated as the employees covered by Annexure P-8, decision and these are the matters to be considered by the Board. In case the petitioners herein are also similarly situated, there is no justification in discriminating them. Therefore, the Board of Directors of the third respondent Bank may consider the representation, Annexure P-4 filed by the petitioners and take appropriate action thereon within a period of two months from the date of production of copy of this judgment and copy of the writ petition, by the petitioners. 3. The writ petition is disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any. Copy Dasti. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice. December 23, 2011, ( Justice V.K. Ahuja), (karan/vs) Judge.