IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T) No.: 8192 of 2008. Decided on: 15.07.2011. _____________________________________________ Shri Bhuri Singh. … Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others. … Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajesh Raghuvanshi, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Vikas Rathore, Deputy Advocate General with Mr. R.P. Singh, Assistant Advocate General for respondents No.1 to 3. Respondents No.4 to 6 already ex-parte. Rajiv Sharma, Judge (oral): According to the averments contained in the petition, the petitioner was engaged as pipe fitter in 1984, but he was considered for regularisation as Beldar. 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. - 2 - 2. The case of the petitioner, in a nutshell, is that he should have been regularised as pipe fitter. He approached the erstwhile learned Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal by way of O.A.(M) No.424 of 1995 for the redressal of his grievance. The same was decided by the learned Tribunal on 25th June, 1996. The learned Tribunal ordered that the petitioner should be permitted to continue as pipe fitter and as and when the vacancy would arise, the respondent-department will consider the case of the petitioner for regularisation on the basis of seniority maintained under the scheme. The petitioner was ordered to be placed in the pay-scale of Beldar, i.e. ` 770-1350. The respondent- department issued a corrigendum on 7th March, 1998 whereby instead of Beldar, the petitioner was ordered to be appointed as pipe fitter in the pay-scale of ` 770-1350. 3. Mr. Rajesh Raghuvanshi, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the judgment dated 25th June, 1996 rendered by the learned Tribunal has not been implemented in letter and spirit. 4. However, it is evident from the material placed on record and the contents of Annexure-R dated 9.3.1998 filed with supplementary affidavit that the petitioner’s designation was changed from Beldar to pipe fitter in the pay-scale of ` 770-1350. - 3 - 5. The grievance of the petitioner stands redressed and the judgment rendered in OA(M) No. 424 of 1995 has already been implemented. Consequently, there is no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed, so also the pending application(s), if any. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma), Judge. July 15, 2011. (sck).