IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP (T) No. 8951 of 2008. Date of Decision : December 21, 2010 Santosh Kumar Petitioner Versus State of H.P through Secretary and others Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner : Ms. Priyanka Chauhan, Advocate, for the petitioner. For the respondents : Mr. Ram Murti Bisht, Deputy Advocate General. Sanjay Karol, J. (Oral) In identical circumstances, this Court in CWP (T) No.781 of 2008 titled as Rakesh Chand Versus State of H.P, has allowed the petition filed by another similar situated petitioner. The benefits, as claimed for by the petitioner in the instant petition are directed to be paid to similarly situated employees by the Court. It is stated at the bar that by way of interim order passed in LPA No.105 of 2010 titled as State Versus Rakesh Chand operation of the order has been stayed. 2. This petition was filed in the year 2002. Undisputedly decision in the Letters Patent Appeal shall have a bearing on the merits of Whether reports of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 this case. No useful purpose would be served by keeping this petition pending during the pendency of Letters Patent Appeal. Consequently, direction is issued that the orders passed in Letters Patent Appeal and other subsequent proceedings, if any, shall be applicable in the instant case also. 3. With the aforesaid observations, the present petition stands disposed of. (Sanjay Karol), Judge December 21, 2010 CS