IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. LPA No. 130 of 2009 Decided on: 13th May, 2011. K.D. Sharma. Appellant. Versus HP University & anr. Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. For the Appellant: Mr. A.K. Vashishta, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. B.C. Negi, Advocate. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral) The appellant is the writ petitioner. He is aggrieved since his request for grant of ex-post facto study leave was rejected. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition mainly on the ground that the petitioner has taken up the issue after about 13 years. Aggrieved, the present LPA. 2. It is seen that the study leave pertains to the year 1978-79. According to the petitioner that study leave was granted to the petitioner without any financial commitment on the part of the University. On that basis, the petitioner availed the leave and he completed the Course. According to the petitioner, he made representation after 13 years, when he came to know that in several cases, the University had 2 granted the study leave to people with financial commitment. But in the reply, it is categorically stated that during the year 1978-79 when the petitioner was granted study leave, there was no provision in the University which enabled the University to grant study leave to non-teaching staff with financial commitment. Evidently, the cases of the similarly situated persons are governed by the Rules at the time of their availing the leave. The case of the petitioner could have been considered only in accordance with the Rules as they existed at the time of availing of the leave. 3. We do not find any merit in the appeal, though for other grounds as well. The appeal is accordingly dismissed, so also the pending applications, if any. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice 13th May, 2011. (Justice V.K. Ahuja), (tr) Judge. 3