IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP (T) No. 5043 of 2008 Date of Decision: 12th May, 2010 Shyam Murti Bhardwaj Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol,J. Whether approved for reporting1? No. For the petitioner: Mr.Ranjana Parmar, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. R.M.Bisht, Dy. Advocate General. Sanjay Karol, J. (Oral) 1. Petitioner was appointed as a Forest Guard in the Chopal Forest Division vide office order dated 28.2.1989. Subsequently he was transferred to Kotgarh Forest Division in terms of order dated 4.6.1993. There he was posted on special duty in the Kotgarh Forest Division itself. 2. It is the petitioner’s contention that he was assigned the duty of a Forest Prosecutor, a higher post, hence he may be accorded benefits of the said post. 3. There is no denial of the fact that in the Forest Division, there is no post of Forest Prosecutor. The petitioner is also not doing the job of a Public Prosecutor. The State gets its matter conducted through Assistant and District attorneys in the lower Courts and the office of learned Advocate Whether the reporters of Local Papers are allowed to see the Judgment? 2 General in the High Court. Petitioner is also not a qualified Advocate. His appointment is that of Forest Guard only. Petitioner may have had consultations with the Advocates appointed by the Government in the office of Advocate General, Shimla, in connection with Court cases, but that fact alone would not confer any legally enforceable right upon him. 4. Letter dated 30.6.1995 and 24.5.1996 showing that petitioner was discharging the duties of a Forest Prosecutor also do not confer any right upon him for higher benefits. He may have, in the discharge of his duties, in connection with the court cases pertaining to his division, approached the Advocates. In the inter and intra departmental communications, his name and nomenclature of his post is given as Prosecutor which fact also would not confer any right upon him. 5. No legally enforceable right of the petitioner is breached. The present petition, without any merit, is dismissed. 13th May, 2010 (Sanjay Karol) (C) Judge.