IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP(T) No. 8628 of 2008 Date of Decision: 8th December, 2010 __________________________________________________________ Gurnam Singh ….Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & another ….Respondent. ___________________________________________________________ Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. ___________________________________________________________ For the Petitioner: Mr. D.P. Gupta Advocate For the Respondents: Mr. P.M. Negi, Deputy A.G. with Mr. R.P. Singh, Asstt. Advocate General. __________________________________________________________________ Rajiv Sharma, J (oral). Mr. D.P. Gupta, learned counsel, submits that though vide order dated 3rd April, 2001 of the learned Tribunal, the petitioner was appointed, but, the service benefits i.e. seniority etc. have not been granted to him. The petitioner has already made representations to the Director of Education vide Annexures A-1 and A-2, but the same have not been decided till date. Consequently, respondent No. 2 is directed to decide the representations, by a speaking order within a period of two months after the production of a certified copy of this judgment and the Director shall also take into consideration the judgment 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?. 2 of the learned Tribunal, rendered in Original Application No. 1652 of 1999 dated 3rd April, 2001 pursuant to which the petitioner was ordered to be appointed by the learned Tribunal. 2. In view of above directions, the petition is disposed of. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma) Judge December 8th, 2010(ms)