IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP(T) No. 10695 of 2008 Decided on: 24.12.2010 Balbir Singh …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others …Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1. No For the petitioner : Mr. Lovneesh Kanwar, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Anshul Bansal, Additional Advocate General, with Mr. Anil Jaswal, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents No. 1 and 2. None for respondent No. 3. Rajiv Sharma, Judge (Oral) : Case of the petitioner, in a nut-shell, is that he has not been paid reimbursement in accordance with law. Mr. Lovneesh Kanwar, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed on record copy of letter dated 7th September, 2001. A bare perusal of the same reveals that an employee is entitled to a sum of ` 14,160/- against Rule No. 3.1. 2. Consequently, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent/State to consider the case of the petitioner for reimbursement, as per letter dated 7.9.2001, within a period of one 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No -2- month after the production of certified copy of this judgment by the petitioner. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma), Judge December 24, 2010 (K. Attri)