IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP (T) No. 4327 of 2008 Decided on: 14.6.2011 Sanjive Shaunak and others …Petitioners Versus H.P. Horticulture Marketing and Processing Corporation Ltd and others. …Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1. No For the petitioners : Mr. Dushyant Dadwal, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Dilip Sharma, Advocate, for . respondents No. 1 & 2. . . Mr. Anil Jaswal, Deputy Advocate General with Mr. R.P. Singh, Assistant Advocate General, for respondents No. 3 and 4. Rajiv Sharma, Judge (Oral) : Grievance of the petitioners has been partly redressed as per contents of Annexure R-III by the Service Committee vide proceedings dated 11.2.2011. However, the petitioners are claiming parity with their counterparts in the department of Horticulture w.e.f. 1.1.1986. Petitioners have made various representations for the redressal of their grievance, as far as anomaly in the pay scale of the Assistant Marketing Officer is concerned. A detailed representation has been made by the petitioners to the Managing Director of the respondent-Corporation vide Annexure A-17, however, the same has not been decided by the Service Committee till date. 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No -2- 2. Accordingly, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to the Managing Director of the respondent-Corporation to forward the case of the petitioners along with representation to respondent No. 4 within a period of four weeks from today. Thereafter, respondent No. 4 shall forward the case to the Service Committee as per the practice prevalent for determining the pay scale of the public undertakings, within a further period of four weeks. Consequently, the Service Committee shall decide the matter and make necessary recommendations to the State Government within a further period of 10 weeks. The entire process be completed within a period of four months from the date of production of certified copy of this judgment by the petitioners. Needless to add that in case the grievance of the petitioners is redressed, they shall be entitled to all the consequential benefits w.e.f. 1.1.1986. No costs. Copy dasti on usual terms. (Rajiv Sharma), Judge June 14, 2011 (K. Attri)