IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA.

LPA No.341 of 2010 alongwith LPA Nos. 348 of 2010, 23 of 2011, 38 of 2011, 42 of 2011, 85 of 2011 and CWP No.171 of 2012.

Decided on: November 20, 2013.

1. LPA No.341 of 2010.

State of H.P. and others.	Appellants.
Digvijay Singh and others.	Versus<br>Respondents.
For the appellants<br>:	Mr.<br>B.S.<br>Parmar,<br>Addl.<br>Advocate<br>General<br>with<br>Mr.<br>V.S.<br>Chauhan,<br>Additional Advocate General and Mr.<br>Vikram Thakur, Dy. Advocate General,
For the respondents :	Ms. Priyanka Chauhan, Advocate,<br>vice Mr. P.P. Chauhan, Advocate.
2.<br>LPA No.348 of 2010.
State of H.P. and others.	Appellants.<br>Versus
Raj Bhushan and others.	Respondents.
For the appellants<br>:	Mr.<br>B.S.<br>Parmar,<br>Addl.<br>Advocate<br>General<br>with<br>Mr.<br>V.S.<br>Chauhan,<br>Additional Advocate General and Mr.<br>Vikram Thakur, Dy. Advocate General,
For the respondents :	Ms. Priyanka Chauhan, Advocate,<br>vice Mr. P.P. Chauhan, Advocate,<br>for respondents No.1 to 9 and 11.
	None for respondent No.10.
3.<br>LPA No.23 of 2011.
State of H.P. and others.	Appellants.<br>Versus
Indira Thakur and others.	Respondents.
For the appellants<br>:	Mr.<br>B.S.<br>Parmar,<br>Addl.<br>Advocate<br>General<br>with<br>Mr.<br>V.S.<br>Chauhan,<br>Additional Advocate General and Mr.<br>Vikram Thakur, Dy. Advocate General,

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment?

For the respondents :	Ms. Priyanka Chauhan, Advocate,
	vice Mr. P.P. Chauhan, Advocate.

4.<br>LPA No.38 of 2011.
State of H.P. and others.	Appellants.
Bhagat Ram and others.	Versus<br>Respondents.
For the appellants<br>:	Mr.<br>B.S.<br>Parmar,<br>Addl.<br>Advocate<br>General<br>with<br>Mr.<br>V.S.<br>Chauhan,<br>Additional Advocate General and Mr.<br>Vikram Thakur, Dy. Advocate General,
For the respondents :	Ms. Priyanka Chauhan, Advocate,
5.<br>LPA No.42 of 2011.
State of H.P. and others.	Appellants.<br>Versus
Lok Pal and others.	Respondents.
For the appellants<br>:	Mr.<br>B.S.<br>Parmar,<br>Addl.<br>Advocate<br>General<br>with<br>Mr.<br>V.S.<br>Chauhan,<br>Additional Advocate General and Mr.<br>Vikram Thakur, Dy. Advocate General,
For the respondents :	Ms. Priyanka Chauhan, Advocate,<br>vice Mr. P.P. Chauhan, Advocate for<br>respondents No.1 to 5.

None for respondents No.6 to 12.

6.<br>LPA No.85 of 2011.
State of H.P. and others.	Appellants.
Kuldip Singh and others.	Versus<br>Respondents.
For the appellants<br>:	Mr.<br>B.S.<br>Parmar,<br>Addl.<br>Advocate<br>General<br>with<br>Mr.<br>V.S.<br>Chauhan,<br>Additional Advocate General and Mr.<br>Vikram Thakur, Dy. Advocate General,
For the respondents :	Ms. Priyanka Chauhan, Advocate,<br>vice Mr. P.P. Chauhan, Advocate.

7. CWP No.171 of 2012.

Shakuntla Devi.	…Petitioner.
Versus<br>State of H. P. and others.	…Respondents.

For the petitioner<br>:	Ms. Priyanka Chauhan, Advocate,<br>vice Mr. P.P. Chauhan, Advocate,
For the respondents :	Mr.<br>B.S.<br>Parmar,<br>Addl.<br>Advocate<br>General<br>with<br>Mr.<br>V.S.<br>Chauhan,<br>Additional Advocate General and Mr.<br>Vikram Thakur, Dy. Advocate General.
Coram

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, J.

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dharam Chand Chaudhary.

Whether approved for reporting? No.

Dev Darshan Sud, J (oral):

LPA Nos.341 of 2010, 348 of 2010, 23 of 2011, 38 of 2011, 42 of 2011, 85 of 2011.

Heard. We have been taken through the pleadings by the learned counsel for the parties, who has also drawn our attention to the order passed by this Court in LPA No.219 of 2010 titled State of H.P. and others vs. Suresh Rana and others and other companion matters. Those appeals were dismissed by this Court, which had been preferred by the State. The present appeals have been preferred against the judgment of the Hon'ble Single Judge passed in CWP (T) No.8260 of 2008 titled Digvijay Singh and others vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Others and

other connected matters. The Hon'ble Single Judge while disposing of Digvijay Singh's case held that it was jointly represented by the learned counsel for the parties that the dispute is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court in Suresh Rana and others vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others (CWP (T) No.14084/2008, decided on 20.4.2010. What is urged before us is that such a concession does not fall within the law laid down in that judgment. Be that as it may, we find that the judgment passed in Suresh Rana's case was affirmed in LPA. Therefore, all these appeals are dismissed.

CWP No.171 of 2012.

2. This writ petition is allowed in view of the directions passed by this Court in LPA No.219 of 2010 titled State of H.P. and others vs. Suresh Rana and others and other companion matters.

3. All pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.

(Dev Darshan Sud ) Judge.

November 20, 2013. Judge (Pds)

(Dharam Chand Chaudhary )