IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP(T) No. 12451 of 2008 Date of Decision : March 29, 2011 M. L. Modgil Petitioner Versus State of H.P. Respondent Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner : Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. For the respondent : Mr. Ram Murti Bisht, Deputy Advocate General for the respondent-State. Sanjay Karol, J. (Oral) The petitioner claims the benefit of ad-hoc service followed by regular service for the purpose of seniority and promotion. According to the petitioner, the issue is covered in his favour by the judgment of this Court rendered in LPA No.36 of 2010, Sita Ram vs. State. It is for the respondent authority to consider this aspect of the matter. Petitioner submits that he would file an appropriate representation furnishing all factual details before the competent authority within a period of one month from today. It is always open for him to do so. Whether reports of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2. The respondent/competent authority will look into the matter, verify the facts and pass appropriate orders thereon in accordance with law, in light of the decision referred to above within a period of two months from the date of production of a copy of the judgment referred to above and a copy of this judgment alongwith a copy of the writ petition by the petitioner before the respondent. 3. With the aforesaid observations the present petition stands disposed of. (Sanjay Karol), Judge. March 29, 2011 (PK)