IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP(T) No. 10624 of 2008 Decided on: 22.12.2010 Jagdishwari Thakur …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others …Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1. For the petitioner : Mr. P.P. Chauhan, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. P.M. Negi, Deputy Advocate General with Mr. J.S. Guleria, Assistant Advocate General, for respondents No. 1 to 3. Respondent No. 4 exparte. None for respondent No. 5. Rajiv Sharma, Judge (Oral) : Case of the petitioner, in a nut-shell, is that her case is required to be considered from the date her juniors were promoted as C.H.T. It has come in the reply that the pay of the petitioner will be re- fixed on promotion, as per Rules. 2. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent/State to do the needful, if not already done, as per para-3 of the reply towards re-fixation of the pay of the petitioner, within a period of two months after the production of certified copy of this judgment by the petitioner. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma), Judge December 22, 2010 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? (K. Attri)