Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA. CWP No. 1826 OF 2008. Date of Decision: 7th July, 2011. Surinder Singh and others. …..Petitioners. Versus State of H.P. and others. …..Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? No. For the petitioners : Mr. Vikas Bhardwaj, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr.A.K.Bansal, Addl. Advocate General, for respondents No.1 to 3. : Mr. Ashok Thakur, Advocate, vice Mr. Sandeep Sharma, Asstt. Solicitor General of India, for respondent No.4. Surinder Singh, J. (Oral): By means of this petition, the petitioners sought the writ of certiorari to quash retrospective application of ‘H.P. Civil Services Contributory (Pension) Rules, 2006’ and also a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to allow the petitioners to be governed by the provisions of the ‘Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972’, consequently, amenable to General Provident - 2 - Fund (Central Services) Rules, 1960, by allowing to retain their respective GPF accounts. 2. In fact, the employees of the State Government appointed on or after 15.5.2003, have been excluded from the purview of Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, by a Notification dated 15.5.2003 (Annexure R-1). 3. The petitioners were appointed to the government service after 15.5.2003. The matter stands already covered by the judgment of this Court passed in Parkash Chand v. State of Himachal Pradesh and others,[ CWP(T) No.16395 of 2008] decided on 3rd June, 2011, holding that in the fact situation, relief sought could not be granted and otherwise also the State Government has competence and authority to give retrospective effect to the rules and Legislature, especially in matters, like the present one, which pertains to the service conditions of the Government servants. Since I have no reason to differ with it, hence the present petition is dismissed. 7th July, 2011. (Surinder Singh), k.sharma Judge.