IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP(T) No. 16155 of 2008 alongwith CWP(T) No. 16156 of 2008, CWP(T) No. 16157 of 2008, CWP(T) No. 16158 of 2008, CWP(T) No. 16213 of 2008, CWP(T) No. 16214 of 2008, CWP(T) No. 16215 of 2008, CWP(T) No. 16216 of 2008, CWP(T) No. 16217 of 2008, CWP(T) No. 16218 of 2008, CWP(T) No. 16219 of 2008, CWP(T) No. 16220 of 2008, CWP(T) No. 16221 of 2008 and CWP(T) No. 16222 of 2008. Date of Decision : August 23, 2010 1. CWP(T) No. 16155 of 2008 Shiv Kumar Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others Respondents 2. CWP(T) No. 16156 of 2008 Mohan Singh Thakur Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others Respondents 3. CWP(T) No. 16157 of 2008 Satya Devi Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others Respondents 4. CWP(T) No. 16158 of 2008 Padam Dutt Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others Respondents 5. CWP(T) No. 16213 of 2008 Rattan Chand Thakur Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others Respondents 6. CWP(T) No. 16214 of 2008 Shashi Bala Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others Respondents 2 7. CWP(T) No. 16215 of 2008 Ashok Kumar Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others Respondents 8. CWP(T) No. 16216 of 2008 Satish Kumar Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others Respondents 9. CWP(T) No. 16217 of 2008 Narender Soni Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others Respondents 10. CWP(T) No. 16218 of 2008 Jagdish Chand Dhiman Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others Respondents 11. CWP(T) No. 16219 of 2008 Rajesh Kumar Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others Respondents 12. CWP(T) No. 16220 of 2008 Sh. Ravinder Kumar Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others Respondents 13. CWP(T) No. 16221 of 2008 Mohinder Singh Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others Respondents 14. CWP(T) No. 16222 of 2008 Rattan Lal Rana Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner(s) : Mr. R. S. Kanwar, Advocate, for the petitioner. (in all the petitions) For the respondents : Mr. R. K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. Advocate General with Mr. R.M. Bisht, Dy. A. G. for respondents. Whether reports of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 3 Sanjay Karol, J. (Oral) According to the learned counsel for the petitioner the matter in issue is squarely covered by a decision rendered by this Court in CWP(T) No. 13858 of 2008, titled as L. R. Verma versus State of H.P. and others and other connected matters decided on 5.7.2010, copy of which is taken on record of CWP(T) No. 16155 of 2008. 2. The instant case is squarely covered by the aforesaid decision. 3. Annexure A-3 is the letter dated 16.6.2005 which reads as under:- “To The President, H.P. State ITI’s Technical Employees Association, C/o Principal ITI Shimla. Sub.: Grant of revised pay scale of Rs. 1800-3200 w.e.f. 1.1.86 and Rs. 5800-9200 w.e.f. 1.1.96 on Punjab pattern to the Craft Instructors working in Technical Education Department. Reference your letter dated 29.4.2005 demanding thereby the revised pay scale in respect of Craft Instructors on the Punjab pattern about which the matter is also pending in the Hon’ble H.P Administrative Tribunal filed by some members of your Association. The demand of your Association has been duly considered at the Govt. level and the grant of the pay scale has been considered subject to the following:- (i) An undertaking in the form of affidavit by the Association to the effect that the members of Association seeking the revised grade of Punjab pattern shall forgo the arrears on this account. 4 (ii) That the case pending in H.P. Administrative Tribunal shall be withdrawn. You are, therefore, requested to make compliance of aforesaid whereupon the necessary Notification at Govt. level will be issues. Sd/- Director Technical Education Vocational and Industrial Training, Himachal Pradesh Sundernagar” 4. In L.R. Verma (supra) the Court has quashed the condition whereby employees have been directed to file an undertaking in the form of affidavit. Hence the petition(s) needs to be allowed. Direction issued in L.R. Verma (supra) shall mutatis mutandis apply to the present case also. 5. With the aforesaid observations the present petitions stand disposed of. (Sanjay Karol), Judge. August 23, 2010 (PK)