CWP (T) No.3123 of 2008. 29.12.2010 Present: Mr. P.P. Chauhan, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Ram Murti Bisht, Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent No.1. Mr. Dilip Sharma, Advocate, for the respondent No.2. CMP (T) 499 of 2010. For the reason set out in the application, same is allowed and petition is restored to its original number. CWP (T) No.3123 of 2008. According to Mr. P.P. Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioners, the matter in issue is squarely covered by the decision rendered by this Court in CWP (T) No.3036 of 2008 titled as Balbir Singh Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and another, decided on 26.7.2010. However, Mr. Dilip Sharma, learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that the LPA has been filed against the said judgment. Even though, learned counsel appearing for the private parties in the LPA has made a statement that he shall not press for execution of the judgment but it is a matter of fact that operation of the said judgment has not been stayed by any Court. 2. The fact of the matter is that operation of the judgment has not been stayed by the Division Bench and it is still in operation. 3. Having perused the file, I find the facts almost similar. In the instant case also the respondents have not accorded the benefit of revised pay scale. Petition was filed in the year 1996 and no useful purpose would be served by keeping it pending. On the basis of the decision rendered by this Court in Balbir Singh (supra), the present petition is allowed. Respondents are directed to take all necessary and consequential action within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order. Payments due and admissible, if any, be also disbursed to the petitioners within the aforesaid period, failing which, thereafter petitioner shall be entitled to interest at the rate of 9 % per annum. 4. With the aforesaid observations, present petition stands disposed of. (Sanjay Karol), Judge December 29, 2010 cs