1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No. 4041 of 2009. Decided on: 29.6.2010. Thakru Ram. ….. Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. & others. …… Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. For the petitioner : Mr. T.C. Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. R.K. Sharma, Senior Additional Advocate General. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral): Writ petition has been filed with the following prayer: “the respondents may kindly be directed to consider the appointment of the petitioner T.G.T. ( Non-medical) from the year, 2006, when other similarly situated persons were given appointment on regular basis with all consequential benefits”. 2. According to the petitioner he should have been considered for the post of T.G.T. ( Non-medical) under SC/IRDP. It seen from the reply that the petitioner was considered only SC general category. The learned Sr. Addl. Advocate General has submitted that he has not represented his grievances within the stipulated period. We are afraid that this contention cannot be appreciated. The petitioner apparently belongs to IRDP category as can be seen from 2 Annexure-P-1 and in case the benefit of SC/IRDP category had been denied to him, he would have pursued the grievance. It is stated in the writ petition that he had represented the matter before the authorities that is not specifically denied also. Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of directing the first respondent to consider the matter afresh and take appropriate action treating the petitioner in the light of Annexure P-1 certificate, subject to its relevance for the period concerned. The needful as above shall be done within a period of one month from the production of the copy of the judgment alongwith copy of the writ petition. ( Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice. ( Kuldip Singh), Judge. June 29, 2010 (sks/grs)