IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No. 3475 of 2011 & connected matters. Decided on: May 25, 2011. 1. CWP No. 3475 of 2011 Raghu Dass. Versus State of H.P. & ors. 2. CWP No. 3478 of 2011 Babli Devi. Versus State of H.P. & ors. 3. CWP No. 3484 of 2011 Ramesh Chand. Versus State of H.P. & ors. 4. CWP No. 3485 of 2011 Sewa Dass. Versus State of H.P. & ors. 5. CWP No. 3488 of 2011 Ramesh Chand. Versus State of H.P. & ors. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, Judge. For the petitioners: Mr. I.D. Bali, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Virender Bali, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. R.K. Bawa, AG with Mr. Ankush Dass Sood, Addl.AG and Mr. J.K. Verma, Dy. AG. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral) The writ petitions are filed mainly on the similar prayers and one such set of prayer is as follows:- “a. That the petitioner may kindly be promoted and regularized as Class-IV employee from the date she has completed 8 years of service as part-time water carrier. b. That consequent upon her promotion and regularization, the petitioner may kindly be allowed pay scale of class-IV employee. c. That all the consequential service benefits arising out of promotion and regularization may very kindly be allowed to the present petitioner.” 2 2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the cases are squarely covered by the decision of this Court rendered in CWP No. 7896 of 2010 titled as Jai Singh Versus State of H.P. & others, decided on 21st December, 2010. 3. Therefore, there will be a direction to the second respondent/competent authority to look into the matter, verify the facts and in case the petitioners herein are similarly situated as the petitioner in the decision, referred to above, similar treatment shall be extended to the petitioners herein also within a period of four months from the date of production of a copy of this judgment along with copy of the writ petition and the copy of the judgment, referred to above, by the petitioner concerned before the second respondent/competent authority. 4. The writ petitions are disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice. May 25, 2011. ( Justice V.K. Sharma ), (vs) Judge.