1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No. 916 of 2009 Decided on: 16.6.2011 Dr. Duni Chand Prashar ……….Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & others ……….Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the petitioner. : Mr. Rajnish Maniktala, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Anil Jaswal, Deputy Advocate General with Mr. R.P. Singh, Assistant Advocate General for respondents No. 1 & 2. None for respondents No. 3 & 4. Rajiv Sharma, J. (Oral) Mr. Rajnish Maniktala, learned Counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court to the judgment rendered by this Court in CWP No. 60 of 2006 titled as Jagdev Katoch versus State of Himachal Pradesh & others, decided on 20th June, 2008. I have gone through the same. The present lis is squarely covered by the judgment cited herein above. 2. Consequently, the present petition is allowed in view of the principles laid down in the judgment cited herein above. The respondent-State is directed to release the gratuity and leave encashment to the petitioner in the ratio of 95% by the State Government and 5% by the management, within a period of ten weeks, after production of a certified copy of this judgment by the 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?. No 2 petitioner. The pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma Judge June 16, 2011. (hl)