JUDGMENT : 1. Counter affidavit net filed. 2. Heard. 3. The present review petition arises out of order dated 01.04.2016, Annexure A-1, passed by this Tribunal in O.A. No.995 of 2016, Sh. Raju Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh and another, which, in turn, being a covered matter, is based on the common judgment dated 30.10.2014 rendered by the Hon'ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh in CWP No. 811 of 2011, Ashwani Kumar v. Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board & others and the connected matters. 4. The petitioners-State are seeking review of the aforesaid order dated 01.04.2016 in O.A. No.995 of 2016 mainly on the ground that the judgment dated 30.10.2014 in CWP No.811 of 2011 pertains to Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Limited (HPSEB Ltd.) and the same is not ipso-facto applicable to the Departments of the State Government including the Industries Department as in the present case. 5. It is also stated that another service matter relating to the Department of Industries was disposed of by the Hon'ble High Court as a covered matter under the aforesaid judgment dated 30.10.2014 in CWP No.811 of 2011, in which a review petition was filed by the State with a prayer for re-calling the order on the same ground that a judgment in a matter relating to HPSEB Ltd. does not ipso-facto apply to the Government Departments. 6. In the above backdrop, the learned Additional Advocate General has filed copy of judgment dated 23.5.2016 passed by the Hon'ble High Court in Rev. Petition No. 50 of 2016, State of H.P & another v. Dipti Kumar (which along with the accompanying letters dated 28th June, 2016 and 11th July, 2016 are taken on record), in which review of the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court, vide which the aforesaid service matter of the Industries Department was disposed of as a covered matter under the aforementioned judgment dated 30.10.2014 in CWP No.811 of 2011 was sought, has since been disallowed. However, according to the learned Additional Advocate General, the Department has sought advice from the Government 'for proceeding further in this matter', vide letter dated 11th July, 2016. 7. However, according to the learned Additional Advocate General, the Department has sought advice from the Government 'for proceeding further in this matter', vide letter dated 11th July, 2016. 7. Now, since the challenge laid by the State in the aforesaid review petition before the Hon'ble High Court on an identical ground relating to the same Department has failed and there is no further challenge, what to say of an interim order from the higher Court operating. 8. In view of the above, there being no error apparent on the face of record or any other sufficient reason for review of the order dated 01.04.2016 within the meaning of Order 47, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the review petition is dismissed. 9. Above all, the issue relates to grant of employment to a physically challenged person, which requires to be dealt with strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995. 10. While parting, we cannot help but observe that petitioner No.1 being a welfare State and petitioner No.2 one of its functionaries, the aforesaid order dated 01.04.2016 in OA No.995 of 2016 ought to be implemented along with consequential benefits, if any, without any further delay, but in any case not later than 31st March, 2017. 11. The review petition stands disposed of in the above terms.