R.D.Kaundal, learned vice counsel for the petitioner submits that the present lis is squarely covered bythe judgment dated 28.7.2010, rendered by this Court in CWP No. 2735 of 2010, titled as Rakesh Kumar versus State of H.P. & others, along w..

R.D.Kaundal, learned vice counsel for the petitioner submits that the present lis is squarely covered bythe judgment dated 28.7.2010, rendered by this Court in CWP No. 2735 of 2010, titled as Rakesh Kumar versus State of H.P. & others, along with connected matters and the judgment dated 7.5.2013, rendered by the Apex Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) (Civil) No.21939-22009/2011, titled as State of H.P. and others versus Som Nath and others.

This writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to release the due and admissible vacation salary to the petitioner in case the same has not been granted so far, within a period of three months from the date of production of a copy of ..

This writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to release the due and admissible vacation salary to the petitioner in case the same has not been granted so far, within a period of three months from the date of production of a copy of this judgment along with a copy of the writ petition and a copy of the judgment, referred to above by the petitioner. If the amounts are not disbursed as above, the petitioner will be entitled to interest @ 10% and the officers responsible for the delay shall be personally liable for the same.

It is the own case of the petitioners that there were 81 vacancies for selection to the post of AEN which had to be bifurcated in 70:30 ratio for the assessment period 01.06.2007 to 31.05.2009. On bifurcation, total vacancies of AEN came to be 57 ..

It is the own case of the petitioners that there were 81 vacancies for selection to the post of AEN which had to be bifurcated in 70:30 ratio for the assessment period 01.06.2007 to 31.05.2009. On bifurcation, total vacancies of AEN came to be 57 against 70% quota, out of which 9 posts were meant for SC, 4 for ST and 44 were unreserved. However, a revised reservation calculation were proposed as per which the post meant for SC were found to be 6, for ST 3 and unreserved were 48. It is also not in dispute that 1 SC candidate, namely, Harbhajan Singh had qualified against general standards (General category) in the panel of 2003-2005 who had been litigating with the petitioners for his empanelment in the 2003-2005 in which he was successful and was promoted in the panel of 2003-2005 causing vacancy in the panel of 2007-2009 in the General category in which respondent No.1 has been ordered to be considered by the Tribunal being the senior most. We are not convinced with the argument raised by the counsel for the petitioners that on having been adjusted against the panel of 2003-2005 in the General category quota, Harbhajan Singh had carried the post in the said panel causing a reduction in the unreserved category to 47 which were otherwise 48 in number. 

Nearly nine years after the rejection of his revision the petitioner rose from his slumber like Rip-Van-Winkle and filed the instant petition in the year 1998. It is apparent that if the petitioner were to file a civil suit challenging the penalty..

Nearly nine years after the rejection of his revision the petitioner rose from his slumber like Rip-Van-Winkle and filed the instant petition in the year 1998. It is apparent that if the petitioner were to file a civil suit challenging the penalty imposed upon him the same would have been dismissed as barred by limitation. 33. It is settled law that a good measure to determine whether a writ petition is hit by delay and laches is to see the period for limitation for filing a suit if the challenge was by way of suit and if the suit was barred by limitation, the same would be a measure to hold that the writ petition suffers from delay and laches. The cause sought to be resuscitated by the petitioner by filing the instant writ petition nearly nine years after the rejection of his revision is incapable of being brought to life, more so when the plea relating to issuance of note of disagreement by the Disciplinary Authority does not find a reflection in the pleadings made in the instant petition, and thus the writ petition is dismissed.