IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. LPA No. 157/2010 Decided on:7.10.2010 _____________________________________________ Leela Devi. …Appellant. Versus Himachal Pradesh Board of School Education and another. …Respondents. ________________________________________________________ Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. K.B. Khajuria, Advocate For the Respondents: Mr. G.D. Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.1. None for respondent No.2. _____________________________________________________ Justice Kurian Josepth, C.J., (oral). The writ petition was filed against the transfer order dated 31.5.2010. The writ petition was dismissed. Hence, this appeal. 2. The appeal came before us on 31.8.2010, on which date we passed the following order: “No notice needs to be issued to second respondent at this stage. The appellant submits that she may be 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 permitted to retire from service. The petitioner may submit an application and on receipt of such application, the same shall be processed by the first respondent and order on that application will be passed within a month thereafter. We make it clear that it will be open to the petitioner to avail leave in the meanwhile. Post on 5.10.2010.” 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the application of the appellant for retirement was rejected on the ground that there was a case against her with regard loss caused to the Board to the tune of Rs. 22,038/-. He also submits that the amount has been deposited. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 submits that the same has been deposited by the appellant under protest. Learned counsel for the appellant, on instructions imparted to him, submits that the appellant does not want to pursue the matter under protest. It is seen that only case against the appellant is that there was a loss to the tune of Rs. 22,038/- and since the same has been deposited there will be a direction to the first respondent to accept the request of the appellant for retirement by recalling its earlier order. 4. Needless to say that the matter needs not be proceeded further since the loss caused to the tune of Rs. 22,038/- has been deposited by the appellant. Needful be 3 done within a period of ten days from the date of production of certified copy of this judgment by the petitioner. 5. In the light of above, the appeal is disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. Copy Dasti on usual terms. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice. (Rajiv Sharma), Judge 7.10.2010 *awasthi*