IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA LPA 161 of 2011 Date of Decision 2nd August, 2011 ________________________________________________________ State of H.P. & others ….Appellants Versus Bishan Lal ….Respondent. ________________________________________________________ Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.B. Misra, J. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 ________________________________________________________ For the Appellants: Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Additional Advocate General with Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Addl. Advocate General. For the Respondent: Mr. Surender Sharma, Advocate. ____________________________________________________________ R.B. Misra, J(oral) Heard Mr. Rajinder Dogra, learned Additional Advocate General for the appellants and Mr. Surender Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. The present Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred against the impugned order dated 21.9.2010 passed in Civil Writ Petition (T) No. 6659 of 2008. The 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 contention of the appellants is that the respondent was deployed initially as Beldar in May 1989 and continued to work till December, 1992. He had worked from 1.1.1993 to 31.3.1998 as an enquiry attendant/complaint attendant. In this background, the learned counsel for the parties jointly submitted before the learned Single Judge that the matter is squarely covered by a decision rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in Gauri Dutt and others vs. State of H.P. Latest HLJ 2008 (HP) 366. 3. We do not find any illegality in the judgment passed by the Single Bench of this Court, as the writ petition was disposed of in reference to the joint submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and accordingly the directions were issued to apply the decision of Gauri Dutt’s case to the instant case also. As such the impugned order was passed. The present appeal is not maintainable and hence dismissed. 4. We have also taken note of the fact that directions passed on 21.9.2010 were not complied with on the ground that the respondent had neither worked as a clerk nor he was entitled for that post. Suffice it to say that the grievance of the respondent was to be 3 considered and dealt with in accordance with the decision of the learned Single Bench. Therefore, a direction is issued that the case of the respondent be considered afresh within a period of three months from the date of presentation of this order. The Letters Patent Appeal stands disposed of. (R.B. Misra) Judge August 2nd,2011 (Dev Darshan Sud), ms Judge 4